Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Bradford Extension) Bill.

Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.

Dundee Corporation (General Powers) Order Confirmation Bill.

Read a Second time; and ordered to be considered To-morrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN OFFICE (PASSPORT DEPARTMENT).

Mr. DAY: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can state the number of persons employed in the passport department of the Foreign Office in July, 1914, and July, 1929, respectively?

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Arthur Henderson): In July, 1914, three persons were employed in the Passport Office in London and none in Liverpool. In July, 1929, the corresponding figures were 236 and 37 respectively. The staff employed varies from time to time in proportion to the volume of work, and these numbers represent the staff at its highest figure during the busy season.

Mr. DAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of any complaints lately of delay at the Passport Office in London?

Mr. HENDERSON: No, I have had no complaints. If my hon. Friend has any and will send them to me, I will have investigation made.

Colonel ASHLEY: Can the right hon. Gentleman take any steps to reduce the
staff and do away with the necessity for passports?

Mr. HENDERSON: That is a matter I shall have to look into. The figures I have given are the figures as they were left by my predecessors.

Colonel ASHLEY: I only asked if it is not possible to do away with passports soon?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a much larger question.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTH AMERICAN STATES (LOANS).

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can state the date and nature of the last communication from His Majesty's Government to the United States on the subject of the loans raised by individual States in North America previous to the date of union and in respect of which they defaulted?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: There is no record that these claims have ever formed the subject of correspondence between His Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States of America.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: Does the right hon. Gentleman think there is any possibility of ever raising the question of these debts?

Mr. HENDERSON: "Ever" is such a long time that I am afraid I can give no other than the reply I have given.

Oral Answers to Questions — AMERICAN TOURISTS (VISA FEES).

Mr. DOUGLAS HACKING: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information regarding the effect upon the number of tourists from the United States of America entering the 13 European countries consequent upon their decision to abolish visas or visa fees in the case of United States of America citizens entering those countries?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: The only information at present available is that in regard to Germany, which shows that after the abolition of the visa fee for
United States citizens in September, 1925, the number of American visitors to Germany increased considerably. I should observe that this increase coincided with a similar, though smaller, increase in the number of United States visitors to this country and to Europe generally.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

RELIGIOUS SITUATION.

Captain CROOKSHANK: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the religious persecution in Russia, he will consider inviting the co-operation of all the Powers which are represented at Moscow in making a simultaneous protest to the Soviet Government and in effecting a simultaneous withdrawal of their missions in the event of the persecutions continuing?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: No, Sir. I am not at present prepared to take any initiative on the lines suggested by the hon. and gallant Member.

Captain CROOKSHANK: If the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to do this, will he consider what action the Government are prepared to take in the matter?

Mr. WELLOCK: Is not this proposal against all the best traditions of this country?

Mr. SORENSEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to consider similar action to that suggested by the hon. Member opposite in regard to the persecution of Socialists in Italy and elsewhere?

Captain CROOKSHANK: The interjections of hon. Members prevented the right hon. Gentleman answering my question. Will he reply now?

Mr. R. W. SMITH: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any representations have been made to him or any accredited representative of His Majesty's Government by or on behalf of the Soviet Government of Russia with regard to the question of the use of intercessory prayers for those alleged to be subjected to religious persecution in Russia?

Mr. HENDERSON: No, Sir. I have received no representations of this kind.

Mr. ALBERY: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the English church in Moscow is now available for church use as and when required?

Mr. HENDERSON: I informed the House on 24th February, in reply to a question by the hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford (Colonel Howard-Bury), that the church in question was closed and was not being used for any purpose. I am asking His Majesty's Ambassador whether he has anything further to report on this matter.

Mr. MALCOLM MacDONALD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in a letter to the "Times" yesterday, the Anglican Bishop for Central Europe stated that with the permission of the Soviet Government the Anglican chaplain is holding services at Moscow and Leningrad and will continue to do so?

Mr. HENDERSON: I know that such a letter appeared.

Captain CROOKSHANK: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Minister at the Vatican has received any representations from the cardinal secretary of state regarding the religious persecutions in Russia; and, if so, what is their nature?

Mr. HENDERSON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, and the second does not, therefore, arise.

Captain CROOKSHANK: If the cardinal secretary of state has not made any representations to our Minister, will the right hon. Gentleman-instruct the Minister to inquire of the cardinal secretary of state what action the Vatican thinks might usefully be taken in regard to religious persecution?

Mr. HENDERSON: I do not think it is my duty to make such representations.

Mr. OLDFIELD: Was the right hon. Gentleman asked by anyone to take similar action during similar and equally violent persecutions in Moscow?

PROPAGANDA.

Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSON: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been
called to the recent declaration of the Soviet official Press that the Communist programme for England is not completed and that it is intended on 30th March to begin a hunger march on London on an all-England scale; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the publication in "Izvestia," the official organ of the Soviet Government, of statements that in London recently thousands fought with the police, who charged with naked sabres and retired from the fight; that the programme for England is not completed and that further disorders are now to be organised; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?

Mr. HENDERSON: My attention has been called to the article in question, but I do not consider that Press statements of this nature, however untrue and offensive, necessarily call for an official denial or other action by His Majesty's Government.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that this is not a party question at all? It is an attack by the Soviet official Press on the Labour Government of which the right hon. Gentleman is a Member?

Mr. HENDERSON: I have not treated the matter as a party question, but I do not see that the points raised by the question call for action.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Is it not an obvious breach of the Protocol signed the other day by the right hon. Gentleman?

Mr. HENDERSON: I am not prepared to say that it is.

Mr. THURTLE: How can Conservative Members complain legitimately against Soviet intervention in the internal affairs of this country when they are asking us to take the same action?

Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman cannot be responsible for Members of the Conservative party.

Sir K. WOOD: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that this is a much more serious matter than other matters
which have been brought to his attention? It is not only a direct infringement of the Protocol, but a threat of future action as well.

Mr. HENDERSON: I have already answered the points that have been put in this supplementary question.

Mr. ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: Does the right hon. Gentleman still refer to the Russian Government as his Russian friends?

Mr. R. W. SMITH: Has any other Department of the Government received representation from the Soviet Government?

Mr. HENDERSON: That I cannot say.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA.

INLAND NAVIGATION RIGHTS.

Mr. WEST RUSSELL: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if any negotiations are now in progress with regard to the abolition of foreign inland navigation rights in China; and, if so, has he any estimate as to what would be the effect on British trade if this proposal were accepted by the British Government?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: There are no such negotiations in progress.

BRITISH NEWSPAPERS (SEIZURE).

Mr. ALLEN: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that on 12th and 13th February the local committee of the Kuomintang at Tientsin seized in the post copies of the British daily newspaper published at Tientsin, which had protested against a statement in the local Kuomintang newspaper to the effect that Foreign missionaries engaged in the traffic in drugs and arms; whether he is aware that the mayor of Tientsin, who is chairman of the local Kuomintang committee, professes his inability to control the committee's actions; and whether he will make representations to the Chinese Government with a view to assuring freedom of expression of opinion to the British colony in China?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: As I informed the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Wardlaw-Milne) on the 3rd instant, I have instructed His Majesty's Minister to make
representations regarding this incident to the Chinese Minister for Foreign Affairs, but I have not yet received any further report.

Mr. ALLEN: Are those proceedings consistent with the declaration of the Chinese Government that British interests in that country will not suffer if extraterritorial rights are relinquished?

Mr. HENDERSON: I must wait for the report before I come to any such conclusion.

Sir GEORGE HAMILTON: If the Foreign Secretary cannot throw any light on this question, will you, Sir, let us have some light?

Oral Answers to Questions — CODIFICATION OF LAW (INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE).

Mr. L'ESTRANGE MALONE: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any appointment has yet been made of a woman technical delegate on the British delegation to the International Conference for the Codification of Law which opens at The Hague on the 13th March; and whether he is able to make any statement regarding the attitude of His Majesty's Government on the question of the nationality rights of women married to aliens to be discussed at this conference?

Mr. HENDERSON: Miss Ivy Williams, D.C.L., LL.D. has been appointed to accompany the Delegation of the United Kingdom as a technical delegate in connection with nationality. With regard to the second part of the question, His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom are in favour of the principle that a British woman who marries an alien should not lose her nationality without her consent, and the instructions to the Delegation of the United Kingdom have been framed accordingly.

Captain CAZALET: In view of that statement, is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to support the Bill introduced unanimously a few days ago, bringing this position into effect?

Mr. HENDERSON: That does not arise on the question.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

CRUISERS.

Commander SOUTHBY: 13.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the names of the cruisers now in reserve commission?

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. A. V. Alexander): The following cruisers are now in reserve:


Capetown.
Dartmouth.


Cambrian.
Calliope.


Constance.
Carysfort.


Cleopatra.
Caradoc.


Birmingham.
Brisbane.


Lowestoft.
Adelaide.


The two last named belong to the Royal Australian Navy. I may add that, since my reply of the 5th February (OFFICIAL REPORT, column 1880) to the hon. and gallant Member, "Caradoc," which was then in full commission, has been relieved by "Dauntless," which was at that time paid off for repairs. The number of cruisers in reserve has thus been increased from 11 to 12 and as explained in my reply of the 12th February (OFFICIAL REPORT, column 395), there are now only six cruisers instead of seven paid off for repairs.

SHIPBUILDING PLANT (MAINTENANCE).

Colonel GRETTON: 15.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if any arrangements have been made for the maintenance of the special plant required in Government and private yards for naval construction?

Mr. ALEXANDER: Necessity has not arisen for any special arrangements to be made by the Admiralty for the maintenance of shipbuilding plant either in Government or private yards.

Colonel GRETTON: Am I to understand from that reply that the Government contemplate a shipbuilding programme at an early date?

Mr. ALEXANDER: I can add nothing to the answer which I have given on the specific programme. We have maintained in the dockyards a stable position of labour, and we have announced in the Estimates now before the House our general position with regard to construction.

Sir K. WOOD: Does that apply to Woolwich Dockyard as well?

Mr. KELLY: There is no dockyard at Woolwich.

Colonel GRETTON: Has the right hon. Gentleman taken any steps to ensure the maintenance of plant in private dockyards?

Mr. ALEXANDER: There have never been any special steps taken to maintain plant in private shipyards. There have been steps taken to maintain plant for Armaments and the like, but that does not apply to private yards.

BUILDING PROGRAMMES (REDUCTION).

Rear-Admiral BEAMISH: 16.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what is the total tonnage of warship construction which has been cancelled since 1st January, 1928, by each of the five Powers engaged in the Naval Conference?

Mr. ALEXANDER: The figure for the British Empire is approximately 66,000 tons, cancelled by His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom. No tonnage has been cancelled by the other Powers.

Rear-Admiral BEAMISH: Does it not show the utter futility of making gestures to other Powers who take not the slightest notice?

Mr. THORNE: Set them a good example.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 21.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what the reductions in the 1928–29 and the 1929–30 naval shipbuilding programmes mean in terms of reductions in naval personnel?

Mr. ALEXANDER: These reductions will have no effect on Vote A of 1930, and it is not possible to forecast accurately what the effect will be on the Vote in subsequent years.

CHINA STATION.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: 19.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what naval strength is at present maintained in Chinese waters; and how this compares with a year ago?

Mr. ALEXANDER: As the answer is in tabular form, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me in a sentence whether there has been much, if any, reduction?

Mr. ALEXANDER: There has been no reduction of a permanent character. There may be a smaller number of certain auxiliary ships at the moment simply because they are passing through a process of change.

Following is the statement:

The following is a comparison of the naval units on the China station on 1st February, 1929, and 1st; February, 1930:



1st February, 1929.
1st February, 1930.


Cruisers
6
5


Aircraft carriers
1
1


Flotilla leaders
1
1


Destroyers
8
8


Submarine depot ships
1
—


Submarines
6
—


Sloops
4
4


Despatch vessels
1
1


Submarine tenders
1
1


Gunboats
18
18


Vessels commissioned for special service
3
—



50
39

There has been no change in policy during the period, and the differences in numbers on the two dates mentioned are due to administrative reasons. The submarine depot ship and submarines are being replaced.

ROYAL DOCKYARDS (NEW WORK).

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 20.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will give the particulars of the work which has not previously been assigned to the Royal dockyards, but which is now being done by them?

Mr. ALEXANDER: In addition to the work mentioned in my reply of the 13th November, 1929 (OFFICIAL REPORT, cols. 2015–18) to the hon. Member, the construction of the hulls of two destroyers has been allocated to His Majesty's dockyard, Portsmouth. This class of work has hitherto been assigned to contractors. In addition, the fishery survey vessel about to be ordered at Chatham is also new work.

DOCKYARDS (ALTERNATIVE WORK).

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 22.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the idea of obtaining alternative work, outside what has hitherto been the scope, has now been abandoned in respect of His Majesty's dockyards?

Mr. ALEXANDER: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave him on the 4th November last (OFFICIAL REPORT, column 619).

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me whether this idea has been abandoned, and if it is contemplated giving any work in connection with shipbuilding and ship repairing to the dockyards?

Mr. ALEXANDER: It has certainly not been abandoned. It is a matter which is always under discussion by representatives of labour and the Admiralty, and I have frequently pointed out that there has been no need at present, in order to maintain the stable condition of the dockyards, to undertake much work of that kind, and, as has been seen this afternoon, there is anxiety with regard to other dockyards.

HIS MAJESTY'S SHIP "CONQUEST."

Commander SOUTHBY: 23.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the date upon which His Majesty's Ship "Conquest" was placed upon the disposal list, and the date upon which the decision was taken to so dispose of her?

Mr. ALEXANDER: His Majesty's Ship "Conquest" was removed from the effective list early in 1929. The decision to place her on the disposal list was made in 1928.

PIRACY, CHINESE WATERS (GUARDS).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 25.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, with regard to the proposal no longer to supply anti-piracy guards for service in British merchant ships in Chinese waters open to piratical attack, he will state the reason for this proposal?

Mr. ALEXANDER: After long and careful consideration of all the relevant factors the late Government in March, 1929, decided to withdraw as from the 1st April, 1930, the guards provided by His Majesty's Forces as there were other more appropriate measures open to the
shipping companies for exercising effective control over the passengers by whom the piracies are committed. The date for giving effect to this decision is at present being further considered in the light of proposals which have been made by the shipping companies concerned.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the China Coast Association of British Officers have protested against the withdrawal of these guards, and will he reconsider this matter?

Mr. ALEXANDER: I have already indicated that that point is under consideration, but I would add that the notice which was given by the late Government as far back as March, 1929, did give a pretty adequate opportunity for these companies to make other arrangements.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Does not the retention of a number of cruisers help to stop the piracy in these waters and therefore makes it all the more advisable that there should be these guards?

Mr. ALEXANDER: I think that the hon. and gallant Gentleman had better make himself more acquainted with the conditions.

Rear-Admiral BEAMISH: What are the adequate measures that the right hon. Gentleman thinks are considered possible for the merchant shipping companies to take?

Mr. ALEXANDER: It is impossible to go into details like that this afternoon. They have been discussed at great length by the shipping companies, who are fully in touch with the Government on the matter.

DRAFTING REGULATIONS.

Sir BERTRAM FALLE: 26.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware that three Portsmouth chief writers, fifth, twelth, and sixteenth, respectively, in order on the roster for sea service, have been drafted to His Majesty's ships "Dauntless," "Effingham," and "Resource" for foreign service; that this variation of the drafting regulations virtually creates foreign and home sea-service; and if it is intended to apply this principle to all ratings and
to amend the drafting regulations accordingly?

Mr. ALEXANDER: The statement in the first part of the question is approximately correct. There has been no variation of the drafting regulations, whereby all ratings receive their fair share of each description of service and from which chief writers are not exempt.

Sir B. FALLE: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me where the statement is incorrect?

Mr. ALEXANDER: The only way in which there is a slight inaccuracy is that the hon. Member gives the positions as "fifth, twelfth, and sixteenth," and my information is that they are the "tenth, twelfth and sixteenth."

CHATHAM DOCKYARD.

Sir ROBERT GOWER: 29.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if any and what arrangements have been made to stabilise employment at Chatham Dockyard at its present strength for the next 12 months; and whether any further discharges of workmen are contemplated in the near future?

Mr. ALEXANDER: So far as can be foreseen at the present time, the arrangements already made and likely to be made for work at Chatham Dockyard will have the effect of stabilising employment within narrow limits during 1930. In regard to the latter part of the question, no immediate discharges are contemplated at Chatham, apart from casuals and any adjustments that may be necessary to meet special conditions.

Sir R. GOWER: 30.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will consider the desirability of placing the order for the construction of the contemplated new hospital ship with the Royal Naval Dockyard at Chatham?

Mr. ALEXANDER: No new hospital ship for the Navy is included in the present programme of new construction; but the existing hospital ship "Maine" is now undergoing large repair at Chatham Dockyard.

Sir R. GOWER: 31.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will consider the desirability of placing with the Royal Naval Dockyard at Chatham
the order for the manufacturing of the machinery required for the proposed survey ship for the Board of Fisheries; and whether, in the event of the plant at Chatham Dockyard not being suitable for the purpose, he will consider the desirability of laying down suitable plant?

Mr. ALEXANDER: This matter has been given full consideration and it has been decided to obtain the machinery of this vessel by contract; the boilers will be constructed in the dockyard.

PORTSMOUTH DOCKYARD (EMPLOYÉS)

Sir B. FALLE: 32.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty the number of men employed in His Majesty's Dockyard, Portsmouth, under all votes, in January, 1930?

Mr. ALEXANDER: The average number borne was 13,499.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT (DISPLACED WORKERS).

Colonel GRETTON: 14.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if any arrangements have been made for suitable employment in appropriate work of the skilled men and others in shipyards, armament works, and elsewhere, who will be discharged owing to the reduced naval construction?

Mr. ALEXANDER: I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on the 5th February (OFFICIAL REPORT, cols. 1892–3) to the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood).

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Was that reply that the unemployment insurance benefit was left over?

Mr. ALEXANDER: I cannot say whether that is a fair representation or not.

Colonel GRETTON: Has the right hon. Gentleman taken any steps to ensure that employment is found for these people?

Mr. ALEXANDER: It is not the duty of the Admiralty, as such, to provide employment in private yards and similar works, but the Admiralty has secured that the volume of employment in Government dockyards shall be maintained at the stable position.

Colonel GRETTON: Am I to understand that the Government have taken no steps to assist unemployment in private yards caused by their own action?

Mr. ALEXANDER: Certainly not. I would refer the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to the answer which I mentioned just now.

Colonel GRETTON: It is no answer.

Rear-Admiral BEAMISH: Am I not right in saying that it is a fact that a very large bulk of the building programme for new ships to be constructed has been provided for the Royal Dockyards and none for the private dockyards?

Mr. ALEXANDER: The largest measure of the construction which is to be laid down is in the dockyards, but no one knows better than the hon. and gallant Gentleman that even in this case the bulk of the expenditure involved in the building of these ships, apart from the hulls, is put out to contract.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSJORDAN (BRITISH FORCES).

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: 33.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what amount is now paid by this country under Article 11 of the treaty between Great Britain and the Amir of Transjordan; and when it is expected that the excess cost of the British forces will be borne by the revenues of Transjordan?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Dr. Drummond Shiels): The amount for the current financial year is £49,000, made up as follows:

£34,000 Transjordan Frontier Force grant-in-aid;
£15,000 capital cost of Works in Transjordan.

This is exclusive of the excess cost of the additional British forces now stationed in Palestine and Transjordan as a result of the recent disturbances. I am unable to say when the revenues of Transjordan will be able to meet these charges.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: Can the hon. Member say whether the amounts are lower than the previous cost?

Dr. SHIELS: I am sorry that I cannot say.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: 34.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what forces are now maintained in Transjordan by Great Britain; and what local forces now exist in that country?

Dr. SHIELS: The British military forces in Transjordan at present consist of

One Squadron of the Royal Air Force; and
One Section of Armoured Cars.

There is also the local Transjordan Frontier Force, of which Great Britain bears one-sixth of the cost. I should explain, however, that the forces in Transjordan and Palestine form one Command and are liable to be moved, as necessity arises, from the one country to the other. There is a local police force in Transjordan, the cost of which is borne by Transjordan revenues.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: Can the hon. Member state the proportion of the troops?

Dr. SHIELS: Of the total troops in Transjordan and Palestine there are two squadrons of aircraft, four sections of armoured cars, two battalions of British infantry, and the rest are transjordan frontier forces.

Sir HERBERT SAMUEL: Can the hon. Gentleman say how far the Air Force and other forces stationed in Transjordan are required in consequence of the local situation and how far for the British air route between Irak and India?

Dr. SHIELS: I understand that the disposition of the forces in Transjordan and Palestine is primarily for the defence of Palestine and the necessities for which the force is there.

Sir H. SAMUEL: In Transjordan?

Dr. SHIELS: Yes.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE.

COMMISSION'S REPORT.

Earl WINTERTON: 35.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is yet in a position to state when the Report of the Com-
mission to inquire into the outbreak in Palestine will be published; and whether its publication will be followed by any statement by His Majesty's Government in Great Britain, as the mandatory Power, regarding the causes of the outbreak and the means to be taken to avoid them in future?

Dr. SHIELS: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The Report has not yet been presented. When it is in their hands His Majesty's Government will consider what procedure can most appropriately be adopted in regard to it.

Earl WINTERTON WINTERTON: Having regard to the fact that nothing that the Report can say or will not say will affect the ultimate responsibility of His Majesty's Government for the cause of the outbreak, why is the hon. Member not in a position to say when the statement will be made?

Dr. SHIELS: I think the Noble Lord is a little unreasonable. We do not know what the Report will say or suggest. It may say that nothing is necessary to be done. It is obvious that we must wait until the Report is in our hands before we can make a statement on it.

Earl WINTERTON: How can the hon. Member say that no statement will be necessary, when all the Powers represented at Geneva and also this House are anxious to know what are the views of His Majesty's Government?

Dr. SHIELS: I did not say that no statement would be necessary. I said that we must await the receipt of the Report before we know whether or not it is necessary to issue a statement.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: Is it necessary for the Government to wait for the Report in connection with the late disturbances? Is it not desirable that the Government should at once consider the appointment of a much larger Commission to go into the whole question of the government of the country?

Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the question.

JEWISH IMMIGRANTS.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 42.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies the numbers of British and American Jews that emigrated to Palestine since 1920; and the corresponding figures for emigration from Russia, Poland. Rumania, Germany, Hungary, and Austria to Palestine?

Dr. SHIELS: With the hon. and gallant Member's permission, I will circulate a statement giving the figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following are the figures:

I am unable to give the figures in the precise form asked for in the question, but the following table shows the proportion in which the various countries of origin contributed towards the total number of 14,922 immigrants (14,683 of them being Jews) who entered Palestine during the period 1st September, 1920 to 31st December, 1921.

Percentage of total immigrants.



 per cent.


Poland
33


Russia
15


Rumania
5


Smaller East European States
11


Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Dominions
3½


Central Asia
10


Other Countries
22½

As regards the period subsequent to 1921, the figures in respect of the years 1922–1929, so far as they are available, are as follows:


Country of origin.
Number of Jewish immigrants.


Great Britain and Dominions
974


United States of America
2,217


Russia
16,796


Poland
38,850


Rumania
5,555


Germany
2,324


Hungary
276


Austria
1,095

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN RHODESIA (ADMINISTRATIVE CAPITAL).

Earl WINTERTON: 36.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies
whether any decision has been reached in regard to the locality in which the future administrative capital of Northern Rhodesia will be placed?

Dr. SHIELS: The reply is in the negative.

Earl WINTERTON: Can the hon. Member say how much longer it will be before an announcement is made, seeing that eight months have elapsed since it was announced that the locality of the capital was to be changed? Is he aware that considerable injury is being caused to business interests in Northern Rhodesia by the entirely unnecessary delay of the Secretary of State in coming to a decision?

Dr. SHIELS: I think the Noble Lord will be aware that the position is this: at the request of the Governor experts were sent from this country—town planning, engineering, and public health experts—to survey possible sites for the new capital. Those experts have not yet reported. We expect their reports soon, and they will be sent to the Governor, and we shall have them, with his recommendation, when they are available. I do not see that any complaint can be made against His Majesty's Government because of the fact that these experts have not yet reported.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Are the experts in this country or in Rhodesia?

Dr. SHIELS: I believe they are still in Rhodesia.

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA.

NATIVE LANDS TRUST BILL.

Mr. MANDER: 37.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies the present position with regard to amendments proposed by the Colonial Office to the Native Lands Trust Bill in Kenya Colony; and when it is intended that these proposals shall become law?

Dr. SHIELS: I have nothing to add at present to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir R. Hamilton) on the 26th February.

Mr. MANDER: Can the hon. Member say when he is likely to be in a position to make a further statement?

Dr. SHIELS: My Noble Friend is in communication with the Governor on this subject, and I expect it will be possible to make an announcement shortly?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: May we take it that the Government's view of these Amendments will not be changed owing to the action of the Legislative Assembly in Kenya?

Dr. SHIELS: I would suggest that my right hon. and gallant Friend should wait a little longer, and we can find that out.

BUDGET.

Mr. MANDER: 38.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can now make a statement with regard to the reduction in the budget of Kenya Colony in respect of education, medical and public works votes, and the increase in expenditure on the defence force?

Dr. SHIELS: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on the 26th of February to a question by the right hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Ormsby-Gore), of which I am sending him a copy.

Mr. MANDER: Has a full report been received from Kenya, and are the Government in agreement with the proposed changes or not?

Dr. SHIELS: We have received full information from Kenya. I have stated, in reply to former questions, that the Governor has been informed that in the opinion of my Noble Friend the proposed increase in the amount for the defence force should be deferred.

LAND SALE.

Mr. JAMES HUDSON: 44.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received any information regarding the public auction at Nairobi, on 31st March next, of 54 farms of Crown land, comprising a total of over 158,000 acres in the Kenya highlands, on leases of 999 years; and whether His Majesty's Government will order the suspension of this sale until a decision, as recommended by the Report of the Commission on Closer Union in Central and Eastern Africa, has been taken on the principles which should govern such sales to non-
natives, and also the questions governing the putting into force of the Native Land Trust Ordinance have been settled?

Dr. SHIELS: My Noble Friend has telegraphed to the Governor of Kenya for information regarding the auction of farms advertised for the 31st March, but he has not yet had a reply. In the circumstances I am not yet in a position to answer my hon. Friend's inquiry, and I would ask him to repeat the question a week hence.

KIKUYU.

Mr. McELWEE: 50.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to a statement by the Governor of Kenya Colony that his Government was taking steps against those Kikuyu who were giving their allegiance to such associations as the Central Kikuyu Association and that it was strengthening the Native Authority Ordinance so as to stop the collection of money by natives without permission; and whether His Majesty's Government will urge upon the Governor of Kenya the desirability of refraining from such repression of political activity?

Dr. SHIELS: My Noble Friend has seen in the Press a report of a statement made by the Governor of Kenya to a gathering of natives at Kyambu. As regards the first part of the question, the Press report seems to indicate that the Government of Kenya only contemplate action against those who commit an offence by wrongfully refusing obedience to the lawful commands of the constituted native authorities. My Noble Friend is not aware of any intention to introduce legislation of the kind suggested in the question, upon which it may be assumed that the Governor would first communicate with the Secretary of State.

Oral Answers to Questions — WEST INDIES (SUGAR INDUSTRY).

Mr. HURD: 39.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies the purport of the representations he has received from the House of Assembly and legislative council of Barbados concerning the condition of the sugar industry in the British West Indies; and what steps does he propose to take in the matter?

Dr. SHIELS: I would invite reference to the reply returned on the 5th March
to the hon. Member for Newcastle, North (Sir N. Grattan-Doyle), to which I am not at present in a position to add anything.

Mr. HURD: May I ask whether the hon. Member recalls the fact that that answer did not give the purport of the representations, and, in the second place, did not tell us what steps it is proposed to take in the matter. Seeing the desperate condition to which the West Indies are now reduced, may I ask whether it is not possible to do something in the way of increasing the preference?

Dr. SHIELS: There are a number of other questions on this matter, to which I am to reply later. May I say that these representations from Barbadoes said, in the first place, that the attention of the late Government was called to the condition of affairs in the West Indian Colonies, in January of last year, and it was suggested to them that an increase should be made in the preference. The late Government did nothing. In July of last year representations were made to the present Government. They have appointed a Commission to go carefully into the matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I am glad that hon. Members approve of that. The Commission has reported, and its report is now being considered. I can assure hon. Members that the interests of the West Indian Colonies, like those of the rest of the Empire, are safe with the present Government.

Colonel ASHLEY: Will the hon. Member tell us when the Government will come to a decision?

Mr. HURD: Will he also say when we are to have Lord Olivier's report?

Dr. SHIELS: I am answering other questions on that point.

Captain EDEN: 51.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies when the Report of the West Indies Sugar Commission will be published?

Lord ERSKINE: 52.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, owing to the fact that the expenses of the Olivier Sugar Commission have been borne by the West Indian Governments, he will accede to their request that its Report should be at once published?

Mr. HURD: 53.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the condition of the staple industry of the British West Indian Colonies and the fact that those Colonies are paying the cost of the Olivier Commission of Inquiry, he will yield to the desire of the Colonies that the facts disclosed in that respect should be no longer withheld from the public?

Dr. SHIELS: My Noble Friend is aware of the gravity of the situation and the natural anxiety of all concerned to know the outcome of the Government's consideration of the very difficult problems which it involves, but he is not yet in a position to authorise me to add anything to what he (has already stated in another place on this subject.

Mr. CHURCHILL: What are the reasons why this Report should not be made public?

Dr. SHIELS: I do not think I have ever stated that the Report should not be published. What I have said is that the Report is at present being considered and in due course will be published.

Captain EDEN: May I ask whether the hon. Member has noticed that the tragic seriousness of the position is emphasised in a letter in the "Times" this morning? May I also ask whether it is not the fact that the sole reason why the Report is not published is because it offends the fiscal gods before whom the Chancellor of the Exchequer would sacrifice the interests of the West Indies?

Lord ERSKINE: Is not the fact that the expenses of this Commission are being borne by the West Indies Government a good reason why this Report should at once be published, although it may be inconvenient to Ministers in this country?

Dr. SHIELS: I do not think the Report is not being published because it is inconvenient to Ministers. As I have said, this is an important Report and requires a good deal of consideration. I would point out that, while it is quite rightly described as an urgent matter, it is not a new one. In January of last year the late Government were unable to make any response.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Will the hon. Member undertake that the Report will
be published in ample time for it to be considered by hon. Members of the House before the Budget is opened on 14th April?

Dr. SHIELS: I shall be happy to represent what the right hon. Gentleman says to my Noble Friend.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Has not Lord Olivier made it perfectly plain what is in this Report, and that it can be deduced from his speeches that the only objection to publication comes from the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

Dr. SHIELS: I am not responsible for the deductions which hon. and right hon. Members opposite draw.

Mr. HURD: Has not the situation been greatly aggravated since the first period of which the hon. Member spoke by the announcement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to the probable action of the Government with regard to the Sugar Duties?

Oral Answers to Questions — IRAQ (RAILWAY OFFICIALS).

Mr. EVERARD: 43.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any negotiations are taking place with the Iraq Government with regard to the claims of the Iraq railway officials?

Dr. SHIELS: Yes, Sir. Negotiations are being actively pursued.

Mr. EVERARD: May I ask whether any agreement is going to be come to during the lifetime of this Commission?

Dr. SHIELS: Yes, in my answer I have said that negotiations are at present being actively pursued.

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: Is my hon. Friend aware that that is similar to the answer he gave me some little time ago. May I ask him whether our representative in Iraq is having kept before him the desirability of bringing these negotiations to a satisfactory conclusion?

Dr. SHIELS: Yes, Sir. The High Commissioner is very actively engaged in this matter and is hoping to bring it to a satisfactory conclusion. The hon. Member will understand that it is difficult for me in the midst of these negotiations to give a more definite answer than I have given.

Oral Answers to Questions — FACTORIES BILL.

Sir K. WOOD: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether he proposes to give facilities this Session for the Factories Bill?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: (Mr. Philip Snowden): I regret that in the present state of public business I am unable to say when this Bill can be introduced.

Viscountess ASTOR: Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that the Factories Bill is far more important to the people of this country than the Trade Disputes Bill?

Oral Answers to Questions — LONDON NAVAL CONFERENCE.

Rear-Admiral BEAMISH: 46.
asked the Prime Minister if he will now make a further statement as to the progress of the Naval Conference?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer given on Monday last to a question by the hon. Member for East Willesden (Mr. D. G. Somerville) to which I have nothing to add at the present time.

Rear-Admiral BEAMISH: Arising out of the reply given on Monday, will the right hon. Gentleman convey to the Prime Minister the very generally expressed opinion that no agreement is better than a partial one between the oceanic Powers?

Earl WINTERTON: May I ask whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer will consider making a statement before the Navy Estimates are discussed, which must be on some date before the 31st of March. Is he aware also that it is perfectly open for any hon. Member of this House, and would be within the Rules of Order, to raise a number of questions which are at present under review by the Conference, and, unless there is a statement by the Prime Minister, there might be unfortunate and embarrassing results.

Mr. SNOWDEN: I will convey to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister what the Noble Lord has said.

Miss WILKINSON: 49.
asked the Prime Minister whether he has received any resolutions from bodies representing different sections of public opinion urging
a further reduction of cruisers and the total abolition of battleships and submarines?

Mr. SNOWDEN: The answer is in the affirmative.

Mr. ALBERY: May I ask whether the action of the Government at the Naval Conference is in any way influenced by such representations?

Oral Answers to Questions — INTERNATIONAL LABOUR CONFERENCE.

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: 48.
asked the Prime Minister if it is intended to send a woman as a fully accredited delegate to the International Labour Organisation Conference at Geneva this spring?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: I cannot yet say what the final arrangements will be but I anticipate that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour will be one of the Delegates.

Oral Answers to Questions — STRAITS SETTLEMENTS AND MALAY STATES (KUO MIN TANG).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 57.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can now make any further statement as to the action of the Governor of the Straits Settlements and the High Commissioner for the Malay States in suppressing the activities of the local Kuo Min Tang; and whether, in view of the importance of the Chinese community in the Colonies, it is proposed to revoke this action?

Dr. SHIELS: My hon. and gallant Friend no doubt understands that in Malaya the society has for some years not been accorded recognition. My Noble Friend is communicating with the Governor on the subject, and pending the receipt of a despatch I am unable to reply more fully.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will my hon. Friend kindly let me know when he is in a position to make a further statement?

Dr. SHIELS: Yes.

Earl WINTERTON: Do we understand that the Government are putting pressure on the local Government to refrain them from putting an end to the mischievous actions of this Communist organisation?

Dr. SHIELS: No, Sir, the Noble Lord must not understand that.

Earl WINTERTON: Will the hon. Member make himself acquainted with the manner in which this association has been directly supported by the Bolshevist Government?

Oral Answers to Questions — GAMBIA (INDUSTKIAL DISPUTE).

Mr. HORRABIN: 59.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that, during the recent industrial dispute in the Gambia, the Government permitted the use of a school building for a meeting of the shipowners' association while refusing similar facilities to the Bathurst trade union; and whether he will give instructions that such differential treatment be avoided in future?

Dr. SHIELS: My Noble Friend has not received any information on the allegation in question, but will inquire, So far as I am aware the school buildings in Bathurst are small and would not be suitable for a mass meeting.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPIRE MARKETING BOARD (CINEMATOGRAPH OFFICER).

Mr. DAY: 60.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he can state the total emoluments of the cinematograph officer on the staff of the Empire Marketing Board; what this officer's present duties are; and whether there is any special term of contract under which he is employed?

The UNDER SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. Lunn): The cinema officer employed under the Empire Marketing Board receives an inclusive salary of £1,250 per annum. His duties are to supervise the Board's activities in the field of cinema, including the production of any films which the Board may require for publicity purposes. His terms of employment include a special provision whereby he would receive a small percentage of any net profits of films made under his direction.

Mr. DAY: Can my hon. Friend say whether this gentleman had any previous experience of the cinematograph industry?

Mr. LUNN: I cannot say, but I will make inquiries and let my hon. Friend know.

Oral Answers to Questions — AVIATION.

AIR SERVICES (IRISH FREE STATE).

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 63.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether seeing the need for the establishment of an air service between London and the Irish Free State, he will communicate with the Free State Government and see whether an agreement can be arrived at between the two countries for the establishment of such a service?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Mr. Montague): My Noble Friend is fully in sympathy with the object, as I understand it, which the hon. and gallant Member has in view, but it does not appear that the circumstances are such as would justify any representations at the present time to His Majesty's Government in the Irish Free State. The establishment of an air service between London and the Irish Free State would naturally be a matter of private enterprise, and any discussion between the two Governments, to be practical, should have reference to concrete proposals which had been put forward. No such proposals have been received by the Air Ministry.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: As it is so very desirable, could the hon. Gentleman not make representations to Imperial Airways with a view to having all these lines to central Europe and other countries?

Mr. MONTAGUE: All these considerations are in the mind of the Minister.

Lieut-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it quite right to say that it is a matter only of private enterprise when we subsidise these air lines?

Mr. EVERARD: Is it not a fact that one of the difficulties in the way is that the Irish Free State has not provided any aerodromes?

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Yes, they have.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: There are plenty of them.

AIRSHIPS R 100 AND R 101.

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: 64.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if he can now state when the Airship R 100 is to make her first commercial flight?

Mr. MONTAGUE: No arrangements for commercial flights by R 100 have yet been considered, but it is expected that she will make an experimental flight to Canada towards the end of May.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: Will Members of Parliament have an opportunity of taking part in the flight?

Mr. MONTAGUE: That will be considered.

Mr. MALONE: Would it not be better to be quite frank with the public and tell them that neither of these airships will be of any value for commercial purposes?

Mr. FREEMAN: 65.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if he intends to arrange for a flight for Members of Parliament in the R100 or the R101; and, if so, when?

Mr. MONTAGUE: My Noble Friend hopes that it will be possible to arrange for a flight or flights, but both airships will be in their sheds for a little time to come and it is inadvisable to make any arrangements for the present.

Mr. MANDER: Is the hon. Member aware that there are many Members of this House who are not likely to vote any more money for airships until they have been taken for a successful flight?

Viscountess ASTOR: Blackmail!

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

LONDON TRAFFIC (ELEPHANT AND CASTLE).

Mr. DAY: 67.
asked the Minister of Transport what progress has been made in the negotiations for the construction of a by-pass road for the Elephant and Castle?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Herbert Morrison): The negotiations in connection with the proposed improvement at the Elephant and Castle are proceeding, but I am unable to make any statement in the matter as the merits of the several schemes which have been prepared are still under examination.

Mr. DAY: If I put a question on the Paper in a fortnight's time, will my hon. Friend be able to give an answer?

Mr. MORRISON: I shall probably be able to give some information then.

ROAD SURFACES (ANTI-SKIDDING).

Mr. HACKING: 68.
asked the Minister of Transport whether his Department has recently carried out any experiments with regard to road surfaces, with special reference to anti-skidding materials to be used as a top dressing; and, if so, whether he will tell the House the results of such experiments and upon what roads a practical trial will be extended to them?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: Tests are being carried out in collaboration with the National Physical Laboratory on the resistance to skidding exerted by various road surfaces and an interim report will be published in due course. It is also intended to make arrangements for the laying down of test sections of various types of surfacing materials. Their location, however, has net yet been determined.

Mr. HACKING: When these surfaces are laid down will the House be informed, so that we can take part in the experiment?

Mr. MORRISON: If hon. Members who are interested will communicate with me, I will see what arrangements can be made.

Captain GUNSTON: Would the Minister say whether any experiments are being carried out in connection with horse driving, so as to prevent horses from slipping?

RAILWAY PASSENGER SERVICE, BRENTWOOD.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 71.
asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been called to the overcrowding on the 1.3 train from Liverpool Street to Brentwood on Saturdays; and whether he will make representations to the London and North Eastern Railway Company to increase the inadequate service?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: My attention has recently been called to this matter. I am in communication with the railway company thereon and will let the hon. Member know the result.

Mr. OLDFIELD: Will the Minister at the same time take into consideration the fact that there are other trains besides the 1.3 going to other stations as well as Brentwood? [Interruption.]

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member had better put that question on the Paper.

AUTOMATIC TRAFFIC SIGNALS.

Mr. EVERARD: 72 and 73.
asked the Minister of Transport (1) whether he is aware that satisfactory automatic traffic-control signals are now being manufactured in this country, and have been on show at the recent trade exhibitions at Newcastle-on-Tyne, Cardiff, and the British Industries Fair at Birmingham; and what steps he is taking to secure their adoption by local authorities;
(2) what percentage grant is given to local authorities for the erection of automatic traffic-control signals; and if the grant is dependent on the use of British manufactured signals only?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I am aware that automatic traffic control signals are now being manufactured in this country. Grants of 60 per cent. are made to local authorities for the erection of signals of this nature which conform with the requirements of the Ministry. I caused a circular to be issued to local authorities on 13th September last, setting out these requirements, and British manufacturers are no doubt acquainted with the terms of the circular. While it is not made a condition of the grant, every effort will be made to encourage the use of British apparatus. It is true that the apparatus to be used in Oxford Street is of American manufacture. This experimental installation however presented exceptional difficulties and it was necessary to make use of the services of a firm with a wide experience in the construction of complicated systems of light signals. I have every reason to hope that in the case of future installations the necessary apparatus will be manufactured in this country.

WYLAM BRIDGE, NORTHUMBERLAND (TOLLS).

Colonel CLIFTON BROWN: 75.
asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that the residents of the larger houses in Wylam, Northumberland, are free of charge when crossing Wylam Bridge, but that a working man is charged each time
he crosses this bridge; and if he can take further action to free this bridge from tolls?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I am aware that certain persons are allowed to cross Wylam Bridge without payment, but have no information as to the grounds on which the differentiation is made. As stated in my reply to the hon. Member on the 23rd July last an offer of a grant from the Road Fund towards the cost of the purchase of this bridge was made in March last, but I can take no further steps in the matter pending the receipt of an application from the county council.

Colonel BROWN: Cannot the Minister find some way of gingering up the county council in the matter?

Mr. MORRISON: I take it that the hon. and gallant Gentleman represents part of this county, and no doubt he is in a better position to apply ginger than I am. I understand that the position is that the county council is in the course of negotiations, and that it is not willing to make a formal application until the negotiations are completed.

ROAD TRANSPORT (RAILWAY CONTROL).

Mr. ALBERY: 79.
asked the Minister of Transport if he will state approximately to what extent the road transport systems of the country are now controlled by the railway systems?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: The proportion of the passenger road transport undertakings of the country actually controlled by railway companies, is, I believe, small. At the same time I understand that the railway companies have acquired financial interests in a large number of such undertakings. As regards goods services by road, apart from their collection and delivery services, the railway companies have, so far as I am aware, as yet acquired no considerable interests.

Mr. ALBERY: Can the Minister give an approximate idea of the amount of road transport in which railway companies are interested?

Mr. MORRISON: No, Sir; I am sorry that I have not that information.

NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE- SUBURBAN RAILWAYS (ELECTRIFICATION).

Mr. EDE: 80.
asked the Minister of Transport if he will state the mileage of railway lines radiating from Newcastle-
upon-Tyne that are regarded by him as surburban; the mileage that has been electrified; and whether he is taking any steps to secure that an additional mileage, especially including the lines to South Shields and Sunderland, shall be electrified at once?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I am afraid I could not give any exact figures in regard to the point raised in the first part of my hon. Friend's question. As regards the second part, 68 track miles of running lines in the Tyneside area have been electrified. As regards the third part I would refer to the answers which I gave to questions by him on this subject on the 20th November and 18th December last. As will no doubt be appreciated, it must rest primarily with the railway company concerned to decide the priority of schemes for the improvement of their system and I do not propose at present to press them further with regard to this proposal.

NEW ROADS (ADJACENT LAND).

Mr. EDE: 81.
asked the Minister of Transport the number of cases in which he has used the powers he possesses to buy land 220 yards on either side of roads being constructed; the acreage of land so acquired; the acreage sold since acquisition; the cost of the land so acquired; and the amounts received by the sale of lands?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: In the few cases in the past where the Minister has himself constructed a road and these powers might have been exercised, it was not considered advisable, after full consideration of the individual circumstances, to put them into force. At a few points, additional land has been acquired, primarily to avoid heavy claims for severance.

Colonel ASHLEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in every case except one, in which the Government valuer gave advice, he advised that to invest in this land would not be profitable from the Government's point of view?

Mr. MORRISON: I have not thought it a desirable practice to inform the House of the Government adviser's advice. The Minister must accept responsibility for the decisions which he takes.

Colonel ASHLEY: In view of the declared intention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in reference to the taxation of land, would it not be better that the House should know exactly what the official view is?

Mr. MORRISON: Whatever decision the Government may come to in that matter, the Government will take responsibility. We shall not refer the matter to a referendum.

Colonel ASHLEY: rose
—

Mr. SPEAKER: We are getting into a discussion which is far outside the question on the Paper.

ROADS (ADMINISTRATION)

Mr. EDE: 82.
asked the Minister of Transport how many borough councils and urban district councils, respectively, are now claiming authorities in respect of main roads; and how many will be claiming authorities after 1st April, 1930?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: The information for which my hon. Friend asks is not available.

Oral Answers to Questions — RAILWAY FREIGHT REBATES.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: 69.
asked the Minister of Transport what amount of the grant made to the railways for the relief of freights goes to Scotland?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: Rebates under the scheme for railway freight relief were allowed to the persons paying the carriage charges, and I do not consider that any useful purpose would be served by incurring the labour involved in recording the geographical distribution of the rebates allowed.

Mr. WILLIAMS: 70.
asked the Minister of Transport what proportion of the grants made to railways for the relief to freights goes to coal, agricultural produce, and other forms of goods, respectively?

Mr. MORRISON: The aggregate amount of the rebates allowed by the railway companies during the period 1st December, 1928, to 30th September, 1929, in respect of which a Government grant
of £3⅓ millions was made, was distributed as follows:



Per cent.


Coal, coke and patent fuel
73.4


Agricultural selected traffics
17.88


Other selected traffics
8.72

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is there any sign of an increase in the proportion of any of these traffics?

Mr. LEE: Can my hon. Friend say how much of that went to exported coal?

Mr. MORRISON: I could not answer either of those questions without notice.

Viscount WOLMER: 77.
asked the Minister of Transport the total sums paid in freight rebates under the Railway Freights Rebates Anticipation Fund Scheme up to 1st October last in respect of agricultural freights, coal freights and heavy industry freights?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: The total amount of the rebates allowed, including an estimate of the amount of any rebates still outstanding under the scheme is £3,402,680, distributed among the three groups of selected traffics as follows:




£


Agricultural selected traffics
…
608,384


Coal selected traffics
…
2,497,611


Other selected traffic
…
296,685




£3,402,680

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL PARKS.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 83.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether, in his plans for providing recreation in the Royal parks, he has considered the issue of a limited number of tickets to anglers to fish in the Serpentine in Hyde Park?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Lansbury): Children are allowed to fish for tiddlers, and I doubt if there are other fish worth catching.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are very fine fish in the Serpentine—big fish—and that this would be a boon to many poor anglers in London?

Sir G. HAMILTON: On a point of Order. Is a question like this not a disgraceful waste of public money, and of the time of the House of Commons?

Mr. SPEAKER: Hon. Members must not expect me to express a personal opinion as to the value of all the questions which are put upon the Paper.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I submit to you, Sir, that this question was put down at the request of a very large anglers' society in London composed of working men?

Mr. SPEAKER: I made no complaint of the question.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: Considering the additional facilities which have been granted for boating, bathing, juvenile paddling, etc., will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of appointing an expert officer—[Interruption].

Mr. HACKING: 85.
asked the First Commissioner of Works what gifts of flora and fauna have been made by private donors to the Royal Parks during the past 12 months?

Mr. LANSBURY: I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of gifts of flora and fauna to the Royal Parks during the past 12 months. I am always pleased to receive such gifts, and am extremely grateful for them.

Mr. HACKING: Would the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to send a copy of his reply to Sir Harry Brittain who, unfortunately, is temporarily unable to ask a question himself?

Mr. LANSBURY: Certainly, I shall be very glad to do so or to oblige any other ex-Members who are similarly disabled.

Captain W. G. HALL: On a point of Order. Is it in order for a Member of this House to ask the Minister to send a reply to an ordinary member of the public, even to an ex-Member of this House?

Mr. LANSBURY: Sir Harry Brittain was a Member of this House, and I shall be very glad at any time to send any information to him.

Following is the list:

Mr. W. Watts:

2,000 daffodil bulbs.

Mr. Cuthbertson:

100 "Duchess of Atholl" rose bushes.

Duke of Bedford:

6 cygnets.
18 Magellanic geese.
12 Canadian geese.
2 pairs Egyptian geese.
200 Amherst pheasants' eggs.

Marquis of Londonderry:

2 pelicans.

Union of South Africa Public Works Department:

2 pairs Egyptian geese.
4 South African sheldrakes.

Admiral A. Walker-Heneage-Vivian:

6 silver pheasants.

Mr. Alfred Ezra:

1 pair Egyptian flamingoes.
1 pair common sheldrakes.
1 pair Carolina ducks.
31 Mandarin ducks.

Mr. W. H. St. Quentin:

1 pair Carolina ducks.
1 pair Falcated Teal.

Mr. W. H. Castle:

1 pair grey Lag geese.

Messrs. McLean & Wormald:

2 white-eyed Pochard drakes.

Mr. J. Spedan Lewis:

56 Mandarin ducks.

In addition, gifts of nesting-boxes have been received from. Mr. Alfred Ezra, Mr. J. Rudge Harding and Mr. A. Holte Macphersoin.

Oral Answers to Questions — MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (BADGES).

Mr. FREEMAN: 84.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether he will consider the desirability of issuing small badges to Members inscribed with their names and constituencies for use during sittings of the House of Commons?

Mr. LANSBURY: It is fortunately not part of my duties to deal with what hon. Members may or may not wear on their persons. I suggest that if hon. Members desire to wear such badges they should supply themselves.

Mr. THORNE: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of a referendum badge?

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY (MEAT SUPPLY).

Earl WINTERTON: 87.
asked the Secretary of State for War, on the basis of the average price for British and imported meat, respectively, which has prevailed during the past three months, what would be the estimated yearly difference in the cost of supplying the Army with these two different categories of meat?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. T. Shaw): It is estimated that the increased annual cost which would be incurred in supplying the Army and Air Force at home with fresh beef on the basis of prices prevailing for the last three months would be about £340,000. The Noble Earl will appreciate, however, that the cost of frozen beef during the last three months has been high, and that a comparison of the price of fresh beef with that now being paid for frozen beef under the current contracts, which were made in August last, would show a larger figure as the excess cost of supplying fresh beef. In order to avoid any misapprehension I would add that practically all the imported frozen meat supplied to the Army and Air Force is of Dominion, and not of foreign, origin.

Earl WINTERTON: In view of the smallness of the figure involved, as shown by the right hon. Gentleman's answer, is he giving further consideration to the point of whether he cannot accede to the almost piteous appeals which are being made by the Minister of Agriculture to "buy British beef"?

Mr. SHAW: We made frequent protracted and careful investigation, but have been unfortunately driven to confirm our previous decisions.

Sir G. HAMILTON: Are we to understand that Colonial and Dominion meat is not British?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. P. Snowden.]

The House divided: Ayes, 244; Noes, 169.

Division No. 224.]
AYES.
[3.47 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Phillips, Dr. Marion


A damson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hoffman, P. C.
Picton-Tubervill, Edith


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.
Hopkin, Daniel
Pole, Major D. G.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Potts, John S.


Alpass, J. H.
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Price, M. P.


Amnion, Charles George
Isaacs, George
Quibell, D. J. K.


Arnott, John
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


Ayles, Walter
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Rathbone, Eleanor


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Johnston, Thomas
Richards, R.


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Barnes, Alfred John
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)


Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)
Jones, Rt. Hon. Leit (Camborne)
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Bennett, Captain E. N. (Cardiff, Contral)
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Romeril, H. G.


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Benson, G.
Kelly, W. T.
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Kennedy, Thomas
Samuel Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Bowen, J. W.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Sanders, W. S.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charlas W.
Kirkwood, D.
Sandham, E.


Brockway, A. Fenner
Knight, Holford
Sawyer, G. F.


Brooke, W.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)
Scott, James


Brothers, M.
Lang, Gordon
Scrymgeour, E.


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Scurr, John


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Lathan, G.
Sexton, James


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Buchanan, G.
Lawrence, Susan
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Burgess, F. G.
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)
Lawson, John James
Shillaker, J. F.


Buxton, Ht. Hon. Noel (Norfolk, N.)
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Shinwell, E.


Cape, Thomas
Leach, W.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Simmons, C. J.


Charleton, H. C.
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Sinkinson, George


Chater, Daniel
Lees, J.
Sitch, Charles H.


Church, Major A. G.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)


Clarke, J. S.
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Cluse, W. S.
Logan, David Gilbert
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Longbottom, A. W.
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Longden, F.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Compton, Joseph
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Cove, William G.
Lowth, Thomas
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Daggar, George
Lunn, William
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Dallas, George
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Dalton, Hugh
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Sorensen, R.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Stamford, Thomas W.


Day, Harry
McElwee, A.
Stephen, Campbell


Denman, Hon. R. D.
McEntee, V. L.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Devlin, Joseph
Mac Laren, Andrew
Strachey, E. J. St. Loe


Ede, James Chuter
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Strauss, G. R.


Edmunds, J. E.
McShane, John James
Sullivan, J.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Sutton, J. E.


England, Colonel A.
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Marcus, M.
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)


Forgan, Dr. Robert
Marley, J.
Thorne, W. (West Ham Plaistow)


Freeman, Peter
Marshall, Fred
Thurtle, Ernest


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Mathers, George
Tillett, Ben


Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
Matters, L. W.
Tinker, John Joseph


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Melville, Sir James
Tout, W. J.


Gibbins, Joseph
Messer, Fred
Townend, A. E.


Gibson, H. M. (Lancs. Mossley)
Middleton, G.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Gill, T. H.
Millar, J. D.
Turner, B.


Gillett, George M.
Milner, J.
Vaughan, D. J.


Glassey, A. E.
Montague, Frederick
Viant, S. P.


Gossling, A. G.
Morley, Ralph
Walker, J.


Gould, F.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Wallace, H. W.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)
Watkins, F. C.


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Watson. W. M. (Dunfermline)


Groves, Thomas E.
Mort, D. L.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Joslah


Grundy, Thomas W.
Moses, J. J. H.
Wellock, Wilfred


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Muff, G.
West, F. R.


Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)
Muggeridge, H. T.
White, H. G.


Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Murnin, Hugh
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Nathan, Major H. L.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Hardie, George D.
Noel Baker, P. J.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Harris, Percy A.
Oldfield, J. R.
Wilson C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Oliver, George Harold (likeston)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Haycock, A. W.
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Wise, E. F.


Hayes, John Henry
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)
Wright, W. (Rutherglen)


Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Palin, John Henry



Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Palmer, E. T.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Mr. William Whiteley and Mr. Paling.


Herrlotts, J.
Perry, S. F.



Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.





NOES


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Ferguson, Sir John
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Albery, Irving James
Fermoy, Lord
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)
Fielden, E. B.
Peak, Capt. Osbert


Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.)
Ford, Sir P. J.
Penny, Sir George


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Power, Sir John Cecil


Astor, Viscountess
Ganzoni, Sir John
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.
Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)
Preston, Sir Walter Rueben.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Ramsbotham, H.


Balfour, George (Kampstead)
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Gower, Sir Robert
Reynolds, Col. Sir James


Balniel, Lord
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Beaumont, M. W.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Rose, Major Ronald D.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Berry, Sir George
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Bird, Ernest Roy
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Savery, S. S.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Skelton, A. N.


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Bracken, B.
Hartington, Marquess of
Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Briscoe, Richard George
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Haslam, Henry C.
Smithers, Waldron


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)
Somerset, Thomas


Buckingham, Sir H.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Butler, R. A.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Carver, Major W. H.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Castle Stewart, Earl of
Hurd, Percy A.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Tinne, J. A.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Iveagh, Countess of
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Train, J.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J.A.(Birm., W.)
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Chapman, Sir S.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Christie, J. A.
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.


Colfox, Major William Philip
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Colman, N. C. D.
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Long, Major Eric
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
McConnell, Sir Joseph
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Withers, Sir John James


Dalkeith, Earl of
MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M.
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Womersley, W. J.


Davies, Dr. Veruon
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Meller, R. J.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Duckworth, G. A. V.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavist'k)


Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Eden, Captain Anthony
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.



Elliot, Major Walter E.
Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Major Sir George Hennessy and


Everard, W. Lindsay
Muirhead, A. J.
Captain Margesson.


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)

LOCAL AUTHORITIES (ADMISSION OF THE PRESS).

Mr. EDE: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law relating to the admission of the Press to meetings of local authorities.
The Bill is a very short one, and is supported by representatives of each of the three parties in the House. It deals with a point that will arise as from the 1st April next, and with a matter to which a good many of us attach some considerable importance. The original Act for the admission of the Press to
meetings of local authorities first came before this House as a private Member's Bill introduced by the Noble Lord who is now Lord Cecil of Chelwood. It arose out of the refusal of the Mayor and Corporation of Tenby to allow a member of the local Press to attend the meetings of the town council because he had published some criticisms of them which were so just that they did not like them. It was then indicated, through that Measure, that the Press should have the right to attend the meetings of certain bodies elected by the ratepayers, and among those bodies were the boards of guardians.
As from the 1st April next, the boards of guardians will disappear, and the county councils or the county borough councils, as the case may be, will become the authorities to discharge all the public services hitherto performed by the boards of guardians. Just before the introduction of Lord Cecil's Act, the school boards had been similarly abolished, and their powers taken over by the county councils, by the county borough councils, and, in respect of elementary education, by certain borough councils and urban district councils, and in the definition of a local authority the Act provided:
The expression 'local authority' means an education committee so far as respects any acts or proceedings which are not required to be submitted to the council for its approval.
The education committees took the place of the school boards, in the same way that the public assistance committees of the county councils will take the place of the old boards of guardians, and this Bill merely provides that a public assistance committee, just as an education committee, shall be a local authority for the purposes of the Local Authorities (Admission of the Press to Meetings) Act.
4.0 p.m.
I desire to commend this Measure to the House in two or three sentences. As one who has been very actively concerned with the educational administration of a county council, I know that the education service has gained in public esteem through the extent to which its administration can be discussed at meetings of the education committee. This House is an assembly which is always exceedingly difficult to address, but it is by no means so difficult to address as a meeting of a county council. Any Member who has served both in this House and on a county council will agree that meetings of a county council are very difficult assemblies to address. Members, especially in rural counties, come from very wide districts. They keep an eye on the clock to an extent that those who have not served on a county council can hardly believe, and participation in discussion is regarded too frequently as an effort to keep these gentlemen from catching a convenient train home. The mass of business to be discussed at a county council meeting is now so large, that only questions of very wide general importance
can really be discussed there with any great amount of profit. In taking over the work of public assistance, great changes are going to be made in certain public services that very closely affect the lives of a large number of people.
One of the benefits that people, irrespective of party, hope to be gained from the Act, is that there will be a better use of the buildings which hitherto have been under the control of boards of guardians, and a better classification of the inmates. That, in itself, involves that certain persons now in institutions near their relatives may have to be removed to institutions far away from their relatives. Such a matter as that ought to receive the greatest amount of publicity, so that the views of as large a number of people as possible may be brought to bear. It must occur to the mind of anyone who has studied the work of the Local Government Act, 1929, that similar questions to that will be a very large part of the duty of the public assistance committee during the next few years. It is highly desirable, therefore, that the general public should have as good an opportunity of knowing the work of the public assistance committee as they have of the education committee. This Bill creates no new precedent. It merely says that, just as the education committee replacing an ad hoc authority was declared a local authority for the purpose of the Local Authorities (Admission of the Press to Meetings) Act, so the public assistance committee replacing the board of guardians, an ad hoc authority, shall be a local authority for the same purpose.
I would like to say, in conclusion, that this Measure is not introduced at the behest of any of the great newspaper trusts. I gather that their interest in boards of guardians and public assistance committees is not very wide, but there is a very general feeling among the local newspapers of the country that it is highly desirable that they should have the same powers and privileges in respect of public assistance as they have in respect of education. Therefore, I suggest to the House that in doing this we are creating no rash precedent that can be used in any way to the detriment of the public service, but we are ensuring, if this Measure becomes law, that a reasonable facility shall be granted to the Press to bring local doings to the
notice of the people resident in the locality.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Ede, Mr. Alpass, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Foot, Sir Nicholas Grattan-Doyle, Mr. Hurd, Mr. Isaacs, Mr. Lawther, and Mr. Naylor.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES (ADMISSION OF THE PRESS) BILL,

"to amend the law relating to the admission of the Press to meetings of local authorities," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Wednesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 137.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confer further powers on the trustees and guardians of Shakespeare's Birthplace; to amend the Shakespeare Birthplace, &c., Trust Act, 1891; and for other purposes." [Shakespeare Birthplace, &c., Trust (Amendment) Bill [Lords].]

And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to extend the periods limited for making and completing works authorised by the Bromborough Dock Act, 1923; and to provide for the abandonment of part of Work No. 4 by that Act authorised." [Bromborough Dock Bill [Lords].]

Shakespeare Birthplace, &c, Trust (Amendment) Bill [Lords],

Bromborough Dock Bill [Lords],

Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

MILFORD HAVEN URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL (WATER) BILL (CERTIFIED BILL).

Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table and to be printed.

Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow, pursuant to the Order of the House of 11th December.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. ROBERT YOUNG in the Chair.]

CIVIL ESTIMATES, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1929.

CLASS VI.

DEPARTMENT OF OVERSEAS TRADE.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £9,850, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of Overseas Trade, including Grants-in-Aid of the Imperial Institute and the Travel Association of Great Britain.

Mr. DOUGLAS HACKING: On a point of Order. I wish to take your advice, Mr. Young, with regard to the conduct of this Debate. The request I want to make to you is in connection with the amount of latitude you will give us in this Debate. You will notice in the Supplementary Estimate the Subhead "Economic Mission to South America." It is quite clear, I take it, that that Economic Mission is a new service, and that therefore the policy, and, moreover, the Report which has recently been published, will be open to full discussion and free Debate, but there may be some doubt whether or not you will allow a general discussion on the item C. 1 relating to salaries and provision for two commercial secretaries in Russia. I think that, possibly, you might allow a general discussion on that head, and I would like to give you the ground on which, possibly, a general Debate might be allowed. Might I refer you to pages 536 and 537 in Erskine May? You will read there a decision by Mr. Speaker Peel, on 3rd March, 1893, in a note beginning at the bottom of page 536. Speaker Peel says:
As a general rule, on the Supplementary Estimates it is in order to discuss only the particular items which constitute the Supplementary Estimates, and the Sub-heads of the original Estimates can only be referred to so far as they are involved in the fair discussion of the points contained in the items asked for in the Supplementary Estimates.
That is laid down as a general rule. Further down there are some exceptions. Speaker Peel says:
I think, however, that I ought to state that items of Supplementary Estimates may raise in themselves questions of policy, but the interpretation whether they do raise questions of policy, or not, must clearly be left to the Chairman of Committees.
Of course, with that I am in complete agreement. Speaker Peel goes on to say:
If I may be allowed to illustrate what I mean, I would say a Vote for the drainage of the Embassy at Constantinople would clearly not raise the whole question of foreign embassies.
I think we are all agreed on that.
But, on the other hand, a Vote which would largely increase the Vote for a railway to Uganda might raise the whole question of the policy involved in the original Vote for Uganda.
I would submit that in this Estimate we are not merely increasing the Vote, but that this is actually the first Vote we have had for the services of commercial secretaries in Russia. I would submit that authority has never been sought for this action, and certainly the House has never given its approval to these commercial secretaries being sent to Russia. May I give you three proofs? In the first place, there was nothing in the original Estimate for this year regarding this particular service. Another proof I could give you would be by quoting a speech delivered by the hon. Member the Secretary to the Department of Overseas Trade in the House on 20th February of this year, when he introduced this Supplementary Estimate. He said:
when there was a resumption of relations with Russia and an Ambassador had been appointed to Moscow, the question came up as to whether there should be a commercial attaché appointed also.
It is quite clear from that, that it was not until the House had given permission for the Ambassador to be sent to Russia that the matter of commercial representation was to be reopened. It was not until the Ambassador had been disposed of that a decision was taken to send Commercial Secretaries to Russia. It is quite a different decision, taken at a time later than when the House gave its decision with regard to the Ambassador. Further in his speech, the hon. Member used these words:
The reason why we decided to have these commercial representatives in Russia was
firstly because some of the business interests in this country asked to have them appointed, and secondly, because there are very considerable financial interests in Russia at the present time connected with this country."—[OFFICIAL RBPOET, 20th February, 1930; col. 1734, Vol. 235].
You will note that it was not because the House demanded these commercial secretaries. It was not because the House had expressed any opinion at all as to whether they should go, but it was because some business interests asked for them. I hope that I have given ample proof that the authority of this House has never been sought on this particular subject. It has never been sought, and it certainly has never been granted, and if I have given you sufficient proof of that, I submit that Sub-head C 1 must, in fact, be taken as a new service. At any rate, it is certainly of much greater importance to this country than the increase of a vote for a railway in Uganda, and if the policy of Uganda as a whole could rightly be discussed on an increase in the Vote for that railway, it is quite clear to my mind that policy should certainly be discussed upon this Vote. I trust, therefore, that you will allow a wide Debate to cover the policy of trade with Russia, and certainly you will, I know, allow the Debate to range upon whether it is a wise or unwise decision to make these appointments in that country.

Mr. GILLETT (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): Before you reply, Mr. Young, I should like to point out to you that I do not quite know how far the right hon. Gentleman wants to go in this Debate—whether he is asking you for a full Debate on the whole question of whether we can renew relationships with Russia. I would point out that this question, of course, never arose until the main principle of having an Ambassador in Moscow had been decided. That seems to me to settle the main question of the relationship with Russia. The appointment of commercial attachés is, of course, the object of the Vote, but I gather that the right hon. Gentleman wants a debate wider than that covered by the Vote.

Mr. HACKING: I say that the appointment of commercial secretaries was made subsequent to the decision of this House with regard to diplomatic relations being resumed with Russia. It is, therefore,
a different matter, on which the House has not been consulted. The Russian Government having to do with the trade of the country, the only way in which we can get a great volume of trade with Russia is through the commercial secretaries, and by the appointment of these secretaries we are opening up the whole question of trade with that country. I maintain that we ought to be allowed in this Committee to discuss trade with Russia on account of the fact that, but for these secretaries being appointed, as the hon. Gentleman will at any rate admit, little or no additional trade would be possible.

Mr. SANDERS: May I ask you to consider, Mr. Young, whether it is not a perfectly normal thing when we appoint an ambassador to a country, with whom we have relations agreed upon by the House of Commons, to attach to the ambassador gentlemen in our service who have to do with the trade of the country? If that is so with regard to other countries, why should it not be the same with Russia?

Captain CROOKSHANK: The hon. Gentleman is inaccurate. It does not follow, because we have a representative in a country, that we have a commercial staff attached to him. It may very well be that that is a desirable thing, but, as a matter of fact, it does not happen. What my right hon. Friend is asking is that we should discuss that very aspect of the question in the Debate to-day.

The CHAIRMAN: In relation to the question raised by the right hon. Gentleman, this is clearly a new Vote, there being no original Estimate for an economic mission to South America. There is no question about it. In relation to the matter of the salaries that are embraced in the Vote in connection with the commercial diplomatic service, part of the Supplementary Estimate is an expenditure of £1,525 for two commercial secretaries in Russia. I have looked at the Uganda precedent, if I may call it so, and I find that it says, "A vote which would largely increase the Vote for a railway to Uganda." I do not think that it can be said that this £1,525 largely increases the Vote for the Commercial Diplomatic Service, and, as a result of that, I feel that the Committee are con-
fined to the discussion whether these two commercial secretaries and their duties are necessary, and whether the amount of money spent on them is adequate or inadequate for the purposes for which they have been appointed. I do not think that we are entitled to go into the wider question of relations with Russia, for that seems to be a matter which should come up on the Foreign Office Vote.

Major NATHAN: When this matter came up for discussion for a few moments on 20th February, the Debate broke off at a point when I was directing the attention of the Committee to the importance of the provisions made by the Supplementary Estimate under heading C 1 in respect of salaries for two commercial secretaries in Russia. It was no part of my object, nor is it to-day, especially in view of the Ruling of the Chair, to impinge upon the subject of commercial relations with Russia. The point to which I wish to direct the attention of the Committee is somewhat different. It is really whether, having regard to the relatively meagre resources at the disposal of the Department of Overseas Trade for the purpose of commercial secretaries, this particular expenditure of £1,525 is one which should receive the approbation of the Committee. The despatch of commercial secretaries to Russia must be considered in relation to the requirements of the Service elsewhere.
It is interesting to observe that it is now proposed to send two commercial secretaries to Russia, whereas, in the whole of Europe, there are only nineteen, and certain countries, such as Switzerland, are not represented by a commercial counsellor at all. That is a remarkable state of affairs. Switzerland does not stand alone, for Finland and Bulgaria are without trade representatives from us. It is not only in relation to Europe that the position is so curious. In our whole Empire the number of trade commissioners is only 15. Yet it is here proposed that we should send two commercial counsellors to Russia. In India, with its vast opportunities for trade, embracing so many millions of population, and so large an area, there are only three officers—those at Calcutta and Bombay, and the whole of the rest of that vast and rich territory, offering so many opportunities for useful trade and commerce—

The CHAIRMAN: That seems to be an argument for more commercial secretaries in other parts of the Empire rather than dealing with the question of two for Russia.

Major NATHAN: I bow at once to your Ruling, and I am sorry that I should have allowed myself to transgress the strict rules, but I cannot have expressed myself clearly if I led you to the opinion that I was endeavouring to direct the attention of the Committee to the desirability of appointing fresh commissioners in India. That is a matter on which the Committee will form their own judgment. My object was rather to ask the attention of the Committee to the question whether at this time, with the resources available, and having regard to the obvious gaps in the Service in very many other places, Russia was the right place to send representatives, and then to send not one, but two. That is why I was endeavouring to direct the mind of the Committee to the general lay-out of the Commercial Oversea Service as regards commercial counsellors and trade commissioners.
I leave India at once, and come far nearer home to France and to Germany, and ask the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether, when acquiescing, as he said on 20th February, in the views of business interests who asked for commercial representatives to be appointed to Russia, he took into account the fact that even in France and Germany, with which our relations have necessarily during the past few years been so much closer, there are only two commercial counsellors? May it not yet be better to concentrate the resources that are available upon France and Germany, and other countries with whom we have close affiliations, rather than to make this expenditure on Russia at this juncture?

The CHAIRMAN: Really, the hon. and gallant Gentleman must keep to the two commercial secretaries for Russia. He can say that there are so many in other parts of Europe and the Empire, and draw his conclusions, but he must not on this Estimate ask or argue for more commercial secretaries in France or in any part of the Empire.

Major NATHAN: I am much obliged, and I express my regrets that I have overstepped the permissible boundaries of discussion. I think that I am permitted to say that nothing I have said
is to be interpreted as suggesting that, in my view, commercial counsellors should not be sent to Russia. On the contrary, I think that they are essential, and I do not think that anyone in the Committee could object, in view of the reasons given by the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department, to commercial counsellors being sent there, but, in view of the Ruling of the Chairman, I am unable to elaborate the point that the number sent there should bear some relation to the number sent elsewhere, and to the requirements of the situation both in Europe and in the Empire.
In connection with these two gentlemen of whom, as they are anonymous, I speak without knowledge as to their qualifications, I wish to ask the hon. Gentleman whether he is satisfied that for such posts as this, and in particular these posts in Russia, he is able to appoint men of precisely the right calibre and qualification? Let me make it quite clear that I am dealing with the general question without relation at all to these two appointments and specific individuals. I make no criticism of them, because I am not in a position to do so, even were criticism permissible, nor do I criticise their method of selection; but I ask the hon. Gentleman, observing that the first grade officer is to receive a salary on the normal scale of from £1,200 to £1,500 a year, and the third grade officer a salary on the normal scale of from £600 to £800 a year, whether he considers that for a position of first-rate importance of this character these salaries are sufficient to attract the right type of man? Would it not be better for the Department to try and induce into the service and to send to Russia and elsewhere men who have had an actual successful experience in business, and who know from their own past experience what are the problems and the particular points to which the attention of the British industrial community at home should be directed in relation to Russia, or whatever country to which they may be accredited? I am doubtful whether salaries of this range attract the right type of man. I am not at all sure that they are not too small for the right type of man, and too large for other types which are perhaps not best qualified for this particular kind of business.
I should like to see the hon. Gentleman take a really bold step, and say: "Here is Russia with its vast potentialities, with business men in this country wanting to open up relations there, and requiring the best information, and I want a man of the £5,000 scale; I want a man who has had actual successful business experience in his own career, and whose judgment will carry the weight to which success is entitled." I feel apprehensive that the success of the Overseas Trade Department may be unduly limited because of the failure to attract to it just the right type of man for this extraordinarily useful but also extraordinarily difficult piece of business.
I should like to ask what sort of instructions have been given to these two officers about to be sent to Russia. How have their duties been defined to them in relation to the objects of the Department? Have they simply been asked to prepare reports, to be printed and issued to the public, at a price? Most of the reports issued by the Department have been documents full of invaluable material, but coming into the hands of the public rather late in the day, when their chief value has largely evaporated. I should like to know what instructions they have been given as regards reports for publication, in view of the obligations of the Department to communicate direct with the merchanting and manufacturing firms on its own special register—there are about 3,000 firms I think—and to answer specific inquiries received from manufacturers and merchants. They are quite different duties; in the one case the initiative rests with the merchant or manufacturer, and in the other the initiative lies with the Department. Has the hon. Member given instructions as to the kind of information with which he wishes to be supplied by these commercial secretaries? What contact is being established between his Department and the English merchant or manufacturer on the one hand and the commercial secretaries on the other?
Last of all, I would ask what instructions the hon. Member has given, or proposes to give, to these officers as to their initiative, as to their attempts to sell and popularise and advertise British products in Russia? In these days when British goods no longer sell themselves, but have to be sold, what we want in
Russia as in every other part of the world is a vigorous and aggressive initiative. Has the hon. Gentleman inspired these officers with that essential spirit without which an increase of trade will be hard to come by either in Russia or in any other country where we are represented? I put these questions not in any hostile spirit, but with a view to elucidating the position, and with a view, also, to giving an opportunity to the hon. Member—the first opportunity which the head of the Department has had, I think, since it was established more than 10 years ago—to reveal to the Committee the spirit which inspires it, and show whether it is prepared to take in all parts of the world what I have called a vigorous initiative on behalf of the manufacturers and merchants of this country.

Mr. HACKING: I do not intend to follow the hon. and gallant Member for North-East Bethnal Green (Major Nathan) in the general line he took, as I prefer to concentrate on the details in the Supplementary Estimate. Before I go into any details, however, I must say how terribly disappointed I was with the lack of information given to us by the Minister when he introduced these Estimates 10 days ago. He hardly told us anything about the expenditure referred to in these Supplementary Estimates. There are two ways in which Parliament gets information from a Minister. The first is when the Minister gives the information of his own free will, making one speech; and the second method is when information must be obtained from him under pressure by the Opposition, a course which leads to taking up the time of the Committee because it means that questions have to be put to him and he has to answer them, whereas only one speech would be entailed if he had given the information in the first place. Any criticism of these Estimates which I put forward must not be regarded as hostile in any party sense, for when I occupied the position now held by the hon. Member I always looked upon the Department as the one Department in the State which could never be accused of taking any party line, being purely concerned with the export trade of the country, and I always appealed to Members of the House of Commons to give me their support irrespective of the party to which they belonged. But
Members have a perfect right to know how the money is being spent, and to know that it is being used in the best possible manner.
Although it ought to have been unnecessary for me to ask many of the questions which I now put, I must ask them in the interests of economy and in the interests of the wise and sound expenditure of public money. On page 15 of the Estimates I read under Subhead "C. 1—Salaries" that provision is required for two commercial secretaries in Russia. I agree with the hon. and gallant Member for North-East Bethnal Green. Why is it necessary to send two commercial secretaries to Russia, at any rate in the first place? I think we might have started with one. Until quite recently there was only one in the Argentine, and he has to do a great deal of travelling about the country; whereas one imagines that in Russia these two commercial secretaries will be in one place. I assume that as Russian trade is all done through Government Departments it will not be necessary for our commercial secretaries to do a great deal of travelling, but that business, such as it is, will be found in one centre, probably Moscow. If the hon. Member thought it was advisable to send two commercial secretaries to Russia why is one Grade I and the other Grade III? I must confess that I had never heard of a Grade III commercial secretary till I read of it in these Supplementary Estimates. So far as I know, there is not another country in the world which has other than Grade I or Grade II commercial secretaries sent to it; and if the hon. Member thinks he is going to gain such a great deal by sending commercial secretaries to Russia one would think he would not have started by causing them any offence by sending a Grade III officer when other countries have either Grade I or Grade II. France, Germany, Italy and Japan have Grade I and Grade II officers. Does the hon. Member really think that Russia is of less importance than those countries? If he does, perhaps he is entitled to tell them so by sending a Grade III officer to their country.
I turn to the local allowances of £300 and £250 respectively for the two commercial secretaries. An allowance of £250 for a Grade III commercial secretary seems very excessive. I know that
the cost of living is very high in Russia, probably because it is a highly nationalised country, but I should imagine there is not a great deal of difference in the expenses in Turkey, and I notice that in Turkey only £50 is granted as a local allowance, and that not for a Grade III officer, but for a Grade II, actually acting as Grade I in that instance. Although it would be wrong, and false economy, to starve any of our representatives who went to Russia, I think it is worth while considering whether too much is not being paid in local allowances in comparison with other countries. Then there is a charge of £810 for outfit allowances. I am not sure what the usual outfit allowance is, and we are also not told how this £810 is accounted for. Is it all for one officer, or is it divided between the two? Also, I am not sure whether that outfit allowance has all to be spent. If there is any balance after buying their outfits, do they retain the money; or have they to spend it all on their outfit before they leave this country? I come next to the estimated savings, £700—estimated savings, I assume, upon commercial secretaries in other countries. The sum of money which has to be expended in connection with commercial secretaries in Russia would have been very much larger had it not been for the fact that other countries have been starved of £700. We have not had one word of explanation about that £700, except that the hon. Member, when he moved the Estimate, did say that it was being saved
on other items such as travelling expenses."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th February, 1930; col. 1734, Vol. 235.]
I do not think that is sufficient information for the Committee. I would like to know definitely how this saving is being effected, and the countries in which the economies have been practised. I intend to return to Subhead C1 in a few moments, but I want to go on with detailed inquiries in connection with other subheads with regard to trade commissioner services, in particular the salaries of the trade commissioners, Grade II, at Sydney and Singapore. We already have a trade commissioner, Grade I, at Sydney, and we also have at Sydney a chief clerk. It might have been desirable, rather than send another trade com-
missioner to Sydney, to send one to some other part of Australia. At present we have trade commissioners only at Sydney and Melbourne, in Australia. The hon. Member might say: "We will send them there to begin with, and if we find they are not in the best places, let us send one somewhere else afterwards." When I was occupying the position of the hon. Member we had trouble of that kind in moving trade commissioners in South Africa. Originally we had two trade commissioners in Johannesburg, and we felt it desirable to send one of them to Cape Town. The trouble that was created in Johannesburg was very difficult to deal with; in fact, I might almost say that the Trade Commissioner who was left in Johannesburg had a very bad time of it, and he was not able to carry out his duties properly because he was practically ignored. It took that official a long time to settle down to his work, and do the work which he could have done at once if he had, in the first place, been placed there as the man in charge. I think it is a bad thing to send an additional Trade Commissioner to Sydney. It might have been better to send this new man either to Perth or Brisbane where at present we are only served by imperial trade correspondents.
I think the appointment at Singapore is a very wise one. I well remember reading a report sent by Mr. Beale, in which there was a passage comparing our trade with British Malaya. We have been told that the imports there are £100,000,000 a year, of which we only get a very small proportion. I hope the presence of our commissioner there will have the effect of getting a great deal more trade from that country. My congratulations extend to the appointment of a chief clerk at Johannesburg. I am glad of that, because we have been very much understaffed there, and frequently, when our representative has been home on leave, or has had to travel about the country, the office at Johannesburg has been left without a representative. I am glad that there will be someone to look after the office when the chief is away. I notice that the chief clerk at Singapore receives £500 for local allowances. I have looked at allowances to other chief clerks, and I find that the amount is £1,155. I wonder what the scale is with regard to these
local travelling allowances, and perhaps the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department will inquire whether it is possible to effect some economy in regard to those allowances. There is a sum of £890 for outfit allowances, and it is not clear to whom it has to be paid. Is it going to be paid to the chief clerk, or is it to be paid to the trade commissioners at Singapore. It is difficult to tell from the Supplementary Estimate to whom it has to be paid. These are all matters of substance, and I think we ought to have a reply upon them. With regard to the estimated savings on Item D 1, we have not heard a single word about them. That point has been completely ignored, and I think we are entitled to have some explanation before we pass it. I see that under Subhead D 2, there is an item of £500 for office allowances at Singapore. I would like to know if that is a single grant or an annual expenditure.
Turning to Subhead D.3 for travelling, I find that there is an item of £245 for trade commissioners' travelling expenses on appointment. I do not know whether I should be in order in asking how the travelling expenses of other trade commissioners are accounted for. I remember that only a few months ago Mr. Beale came back from New Zealand and Mr. Paish went out there. I cannot imagine that their expenses could have been included in the Estimate produced at the beginning of the year, and therefore I would like to know how the sum of £845 arises.

The TEMPORARY-CHAIRMAN (Sir Archibald Sinclair): I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman would only be in order in asking about this particular sum of money under this Vote.

Mr. HACKING: I presume that the travelling expenses of Mr. Beale and Mr. Paish will be accounted for in some other way. Now I come to the Economic Mission to South America. I agree with the policy in connection with which a mission was sent out by my right hon. Friend who was then the President of the Board of Trade, and I would like to congratulate most sincerely Lord D'Abernon on the interesting report which was issued by the Economic Mission. We have not heard a word, however, from the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr.
Gillett) as to how this expenditure of £5,000 is made up, and I would like to ask for more details in that respect. Although the Mission may have been a wise one, and undoubtedly it was, it does not necessarily mean that the expenditure is not, to some extent, excessive.
I turn to Subhead C.1, which deals with salaries, about which I desire to ask some general questions. Would the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department, when he replies, tell us who these individuals are who were sent out to Russia? Up to the present we have not been told who they are. Were they promoted from within the Diplomatic Service, had they any business qualifications, or had they any previous knowledge of Russia? Did they know anything about the Russian language, and can the hon. Gentleman tell us in what town or city they are to reside? Will both these commercial secretaries live in the same town or city, and will they have to travel about the country? It is quite clear that the functions and duties of commercial secretaries in Russia will be very different from the functions of similar officers in other countries. If these two secretaries are to do their job properly, they will have to have an entrée to all the trade departments of Soviet Russia. Can the hon. Gentleman in charge of this Vote assure us that these secretaries will have that facility before leaving this country? Otherwise they may fail in their mission to secure more trade between Russia and this country. I think that we are entitled to receive some information on all those points.
Probably I should be out of order if I attempted to compare this expenditure with expenditure for a similar purpose in other countries, but I think we are entitled to ask if the prospects are sufficiently good to warrant the expenditure of what, I assume, will be £4,500 a year on this service. The Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department has already stated that the expenditure for this purpose would be £1,500 for a quarter of the year, and that would mean £6,000 a year, but I understand that the expenditure on these two commercial secretaries will be £4,500. I think that is so, but I hope I do not misrepresent the hon. Gentleman when I say that he gave £1,500 as the amount for a quarter.

Mr. GILLETT: That is so; it was a special grant.

Mr. HACKING: We are told in the D'Abernon Report, in the introduction, that as far as the Argentine is concerned,
We look forward to the rapid development of commercial possibilities in South America with greater confidence than in any other part of the world.
What is the volume of business done between the Argentine and this country? I believe it is in the region of £30,000,000 a year. £30,000,000 worth of goods are purchased from this country by the Argentine in 12 months. Our expenditure upon a commercial counsellor in the Argentine amounts to £3,764 a year as compared with £4,500 for thus purpose in Russia. It is quite clear that we shall never get the same results in Russia as we get from the Argentine. That is why I ask if this £4,500 a year which is being spent in Russia is being spent to the best advantage, and whether it could not be spent to better advantage in other countries? What does the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department think about Russia? He has already told us that the Advisory Committee will not give the Russian Government more than 12 months' credit, whereas they are prepared to give to individuals in other countries, without the backing of their Governments, credit extending to about five years.
The hon. Gentleman in charge of this Vote thinks so little about Russians, and the amount of trade we are likely to do with that country, that he did not invite them to the British Industries Fair. It is true that the hon. Gentleman sent an invitation to the Russian Embassy, and, as a result of that, he said that one Russian turned up. The question which I put to the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department was:
Whether he could state the nature and approximate value of any orders placed at Olympia by the one representative from Russia who attended the British Industries Fair this year?
And he replied:
No, Sir. It has never been the practice to inquire into the nature or value of orders placed by individual buyers."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th March, 1930; col. 906, Vol. 236.]
Surely this Russian must not be considered as an individual buyer, because he was representing the great country of
Russia, and although in the reply which I received he is referred to as a buyer, I doubt whether he purchased anything at all. I did not refer to him as a buyer, but as a representative, but I see in the reply which I received that he is referred to as an individual buyer. We have been told that satisfaction has been expressed by exhibitors with the general volume of business done at the British Industries Fair, but will the hon. Member tell us, not about this individual buyer, but whether the exhibitors at Olympia were satisfied with the volume of business done with Russia? I doubt whether the hon. Member can give us any information under that heading, but it is apparent that our relations with Russia at the present moment are not giving this country satisfaction in many ways.
5.0 p.m.
Many of us think, rightly or wrongly, that diplomatic relations may be severed with Russia very shortly, and if they are severed none of the expenses of the officers who will become redundant will be recoverable, and will be a dead loss. In these circumstances, I submit that it would have been far better to have waited for a period of months in order to see whether Russia settled down before expending this large amount of money on commercial secretaries. These appointments, I understand, have definitely been made. It is too late to stop all the expenditure, but the Committee can stop what has not already been expended. Spend this amount, if you like, in other countries, after having obtained the approval of the House of Commons, especially in the trade commissioner service, but I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he should take back this portion of the Estimate now, and bring it forward again in three months' time, when, if he is proved to be right and we are proved to be wrong, I am certain that the House will grant him his desire. I contend, however, that this money spent in Russia is absolutely wasted. I intended to move a reduction of this Subhead before I sat down, but it may be for the convenience of Members of the Committee to have a general discussion on all the Subheads, rather than curtail the Debate to the discussion of this particular one, and, therefore, I refrain at the moment from moving the reduction which
I had intended to move; but I would warn the Minister that, unless he can give to the Committee some more information of a satisfactory character, I shall move this reduction, and shall appeal to the Committee to support me in the Division Lobby.

Mr. MANDER: There are one or two matters to which I desire to refer in connection with this Supplementary Estimate. First of all, I should like to say that I note with satisfaction that additional appointments are being made, particularly at Sydney and Singapore, because the constituency which I represent is very much interested in Australian trade, and it has been found that the existing official of the Department at Sydney has been very helpful. It is interesting to notice that it has now been found necessary to appoint another, and I should be glad if the hon. Gentleman would explain exactly why it has become necessary at this juncture to make an additional appointment, in view of the fact that the Australian Government have recently raised their tariff on British goods to a very considerable extent. One would think that the result of that would be that there would be less work for these commercial representatives to do; or perhaps they will have to work harder in order to get any business at all. In my constituency, in one particular trade, three-fourths of the men employed have been thrown out of work entirely as a result of the tariff that has been put on by the Australian Government, and it does seem rather curious that this should be the particular moment chosen for appointing additional officials in order to develop trade with Australia, which is bound to be smaller in quantity, I imagine, owing to the, as I think, very foolish and short-sighted policy that is being carried out by the Australian Government at the present time.
So far as my constituency is concerned in dealing with the Department of Overseas Trade in regard to Australia, and, indeed, all other matters, I should like to pay a tribute to the work that the Department is doing, and to say that it has always been found to be exceedingly helpful and useful—quite the opposite, indeed, to what many people would imagine a Government Department to be in dealing with business. I know that it is appreciated in Wolverhampton, and in
that part of the country generally, by those who are trying to make use of the services of the Department, and so increase their trade in Australia and elsewhere. May I, in this connection, express the hope that, when the official of the Department in Sydney—and this is a general remark which applies throughout the world, but I make it only with reference to Sydney for reasons of order—is invited, as these officials sometimes are, to become a member of the Rotary Club, he will be glad to accept such an invitation, because it will bring him into touch with a number of the most important business and professional men in the town, and it will be very much to the advantage of the work that he is doing to accept such an invitation. I make this suggestion because I know that there has been, for some reason, a certain reluctance and unwillingness to accept invitations of this kind and to join the Rotary Club when invitations have been offered to representatives of the Consular Service or of the Department of Overseas Trade abroad. I hope that the Minister may find it possible, either publicly or by letter, to indicate that there is no possible objection to officials accepting such an invitation, but that, in fact, the Government would look favourably and sympathetically upon any action of that kind.
The other point to which I should like to refer is with regard to the Economic Mission to South America. I want, in the first place, to congratulate the late Government on this very excellent policy which they initiated. I do not have too many opportunities of congratulating them on their good work, and, therefore, I gladly seize this one to say how very delighted I am that they have thought of such an admirable policy. I hope that it will be developed by the present Government, and that they will extend it very much further. It is really the introduction of quite a new element and a new instrument in the economic policy of this country. We are, as I understand, for the first time, using our bulk purchasing power in order to get trade in exchange. In the Argentine we have said, "We are purchasing, and we shall purchase, so much from you annually, and we ask you, recognising that, in return to purchase from us certain materials what you want." I understand, and I shall be glad if the Minister will confirm
this, that, as a result of that particular bargain, the Argentine Republic is going to buy £9,000,000 worth of material, chiefly for railways—iron and steel—spread over the next two years, which has not previously been bought in this country, or at any rate only to a minor extent. If that be so, it is a very valuable contribution towards the employment policy of this country, and I hope that the Government will persevere with it and will try to extend it to other parts of the world as well.
I understand, also, that there have been negotiations with regard to the Silk Duty, and I shall be glad if the Minister will state the position in that regard. I gather that the Argentine Government were prepared to reduce substantially the duties on silk coming from this country, in exchange for a declaration by the British Government that we should continue our policy of refraining from imposing duties on food coming from the Argentine. If that be the bargain, I hope that we shall carry out our part of it, and that the Government, following up the very excellent policy carried out by the right bon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) rather more than 20 years ago, will bang, bolt, and bar the door as securely as they can upon any taxation of foodstuffs coming into this country. If by so doing they interfere with any little schemes that hon. Members above the Gangway may have it in mind to impose, whether through a Referendum or otherwise, I hope that it will not deter them in any way, but will rather encourage them to go forward in making a declaration of that kind. We want to use this economic power which we possess. We import many millions of pounds' worth of goods from abroad, and up to the present we have not been using our purchasing power. As I said just now, I hope that the Government will make use of it, and will try to go forward with the principle of reciprocal bulk purchases—for that is really what it is—not only in foreign countries, but in the Empire as well.

The TEMPORARY-CHAIRMAN: I hope that the hon. Member will not go too far. He must confine his argument to the Economic Mission and the countries which they visited, as stated in the Estimate.

Mr. MANDER: I quite realise that I strayed momentarily from the straight and narrow path, but I hope that the Government will go forward with this policy of reciprocal bulk purchases, encouraged by the results that they have obtained from the visit of the Economic Mission to South America. I hope that they will go forward, and will apply that policy to other parts of the world as well. I cannot develop the particular argument that I was going to develop with reference to the Dominions, but I do say that I heartily support this Vote for the Economic Mission to South America, and also as regards the appointment at Sydney, because I believe that it will contribute to the greater success of our overseas trade. The late Government initiated an enormously powerful new weapon, which can be used to the great advantage of this country, if we persevere with it energetically and on an organised basis, and I hope that the Minister will be able to indicate that it is the definite intention of the Government to extend the work of the Economic Mission to South America, to many other parts of the world and to the Empire as well.

Sir HILTON YOUNG: I much regret that the exigencies of order must cut off the fascinating prospect of debate which was opened up by some of the observations of the last speaker. Let me refer to the hard details of the Subheads, and say that it is most sincerely to be hoped that some subsequent speaker will carry out the intention expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hacking), and move a reduction of the Subhead relating to the appointment of commercial secretaries in Russia, in order to bring this matter to a test, in view of the very powerful arguments which were advanced by my right hon. Friend questioning the wisdom of this step. Several reasons against this step can be given, and one which appears to me to carry particular weight can perhaps best be expressed in this way. It is the common object of all parties to promote trade with Russia, but we seriously question whether this measure of the appointment of commercial secretaries—officials—at Moscow at the present time is calculated to advance that end, and for this reason, among others.
The Russian Government exercises a monopoly of foreign trade. It carries on
that monopoly of foreign trade by means of representatives—commercial secretaries and so forth—in foreign countries, who always claim, and sometimes obtain, diplomatic status. That is the way in which they choose to carry on their foreign trade, and it may be said that it is no business of ours, but it has another consequence which is relevant, as it appears to me, in this connection. As I can say from personal experience, it produces, in the minds of those who are responsible for the conduct of the business of the Russian Government, an illusion that other countries conduct their business in the same way, and that to promote Russian trade it is only necessary for them to negotiate with foreign Governments. In the interests of Russian trade itself, the most necessary thing in the world is to remove that illusion, and to persuade those responsible for the Government of Russia of the hard fact that they can only promote trade by promoting business relations with individual traders. It is only by restoring their credit, their reputation for honesty, their reputation as decent business men, and restoring it with the individual traders of the world, that they can hope to promote Russian trade, or restore it to its prosperity.
That illusion being present, and the best of all objects for the sake of our trade with Russia being to remove that illusion, it is to be feared that this act of appointing commercial secretaries who are Government officials to represent us in Moscow at the present time can only have the effect of promoting that illusion and postponing the fortunate day when the Russians will begin to understand that they have to get along with individual traders. Necessarily, on the scene of Russian trade, these commercial secretaries will be engaged, not only in the task of procuring information for the sake of English traders, but also in the task of actually taking part in and promoting the larger form of negotiation, and interfering—I use the word in no derogatory sense—with the conduct of ordinary business relations. If that be done at the present time on the Russian scene by official representatives of the Government, it must tend to prolong the state of illusion in the minds of the Russians, and put off the better day when they come to understand on what lines
business can really be conducted. That is one of the aspects of the general issue on this Vote.
May I, in the interest of economy, which has always been the interest of this House, reinforce some of the things which have been said by my right hon. Friend. He criticised, it appeared to me with very great force, the scale of the allowances for housing and the local allowances given to these commercial secretaries in Russia, Sydney, and Singapore, and he advanced reasons, which appeared to me very conclusive, for supposing that they were not only adequate but even too big. The allowance which I should like particularly to criticise is the so-called representation allowance. Assuming, as we may assume, that the other allowance given to these officials is generous and adequate, what conceivable reason can there be for giving officials of the status of commercial secretaries representation allowance?
This is no new question. It is an old one. You find there is always a tendency on the part of those engaged on behalf of their country abroad to enlarge the area over which these representation allowances are given, and its enlargement is in such cases totally illegal. What is a representation allowance? It is something given to one who represents his country in view of the special honour and dignity which attaches to the position and expenses incidental to that fact. But one who carries on the most useful but very different work of a commercial secretary has no necessity to appear as a representative of his country. He is not in the position of an Ambassador, or the Chancellor of an Embassy. He has other and more definitely business and commercial functions to perform, and it appears to me quite unnecessary to make this extension in that case. I will ask the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department to give serious consideration, in the interests of economy, to the question whether it is necessary to make this extension of representation allowances.
Let me not fail to join in the general chorus of admiration for the work that has been done by the economic mission to South America, which has been of such practical service to the country, but why have we not had this Estimate before? The mission is over. The money is spent. It is very late in the day. It is the func-
tion of this Committee to secure that Supplementary Estimates are presented at the earliest possible opportunity, and, particularly, is that so in the case of a new service to which the assent, as it were, of the House of Commons has been obtained. The hon. Gentleman shares this responsibility with the late Government, but only to a very small extent, because his own run of time has been much longer.

Captain CAZALET: I want to call attention to the last item with reference to the Economic Mission to South America. This Government has never spent £5,000 more wisely than in this instance. The report alone is worth the money. It is extremely attractively written; it is clear, concise and comprehensive, and, if we could have a report on similar lines dealing with our trade with various other countries, we should be in a far better position to judge the situation and to make representations for an improvement of the present conditions. The report naturally falls into two different departments, recommendations which the Government can carry out, and recommendations and suggestions that can be carried out alone by trade and industry itself. In reading the report, one is occasionally astounded at the magnificent efforts that have been made by certain sections of industry throughout a long period of time to maintain and carry on the very high standard of industrial concerns in the Argentine and elsewhere. At other times one is appalled at the opportunities we have missed to increase and develop our trade in recent years in those countries. I should like to call attention to one or two items in the report and to hear from the Minister what action he contemplates taking, whether he can take that action soon, and what it is within his power to do in order to carry out these very excellent recommendations and suggestions.
We learn that there are somewhere in the neighbourhood of £1,000,000,000 of British capital invested in South America. A large proportion of that is in the Argentine. The trade and industry of this country and the Argentine are really complementary one to the other. The Argentine is from three to four times as rich as any other country in the whole
of South America, and, therefore, it is true, as we read in the report, that the prospects of developing further extensions of trade are naturally brighter with reference to that country than to any other. There is a paragraph in the report dealing with the question of our representatives in the various South American countries. It is very important that we should be adequately and efficiently represented, not only in the Argentine but in Brazil and all the other South American countries.
It is interesting to note that the United States have adopted a very definite and distinct line in regard to this matter. As soon as President Hoover came into office, he withdrew from Europe all the best Ministers that he had and appointed them to various States in South America. He withdrew his Minister in Sweden and appointed him to Uruguay, because he realised that the prospects of trade and industry in South America were such as to merit the best energies and services which the diplomatic service were capable of producing. I should like to say one word on behalf of our late Ambassador in the Argentine, who has been in such a large way responsible not only for this report, but for the increase and the development of trade and industry between the Argentine and this country during the past few years. I feel certain that it would be the unanimous wish of Members on all sides of the House to record their appreciation of his services in this respect.
One of the chief complaints made in this report is the same that we hear in various parts of the world, namely, that we are continuing to try to sell goods to the Argentine which we think they ought to want and are not producing the articles that they themselves prefer, and, in consequence, we have lost a very large proportion of the position in Argentine imports which we held up to the years immediately preceding the War. Of exports from the Argentine we take between 70 and 80 per cent., and we are only responsible for importing some 19 per cent. Surely this is a gulf, which I admit is somewhat bridged over by the dividends from investments in railways and other concerns, but which could be filled by an extension of our export trade.
One of the most sinister statements in the report is in regard to shipping.
Practically the whole of the grain that we import from the Argentine is carried by Continental, very largely German, firms, and 60 per cent. of the meat is brought here through the agency of American firms. If we are going to continue to import, as I presume we shall for some years to come, large quantities of grain and meat, surely it is up to industry in this country to see that those commodities are brought here in English ships and that we get the benefit all along the line. There is another incredible statement, that our manufacturers still quote prices in South America in pounds, shillings and pence, instead of local currency. It is obvious that countries that have a decimal system have a slight advantage over us, but to quote prices in pounds, shillings and pence seems to be asking for trouble.
As I understand it, there are going to be two separate agreements, or negotiations, as the result of this Economic Mission. First of all, there is the question of the exchange of goods within two years of the value of some £8,500,000. Under that agreement we stand to gain everything, as far as I can understand, because we already import to the tune of some £75,000,000 each year from the Argentine. All that we are asked to do is to guarantee in two years to import £8,500,000 worth of goods, but the figure will in all probability be somewhere in the neighbourhood of £160,000,000. On the other hand, the Argentine Government binds itself to buy for the State railways and various other departments some £8,500,000 worth of goods from this country which have not been bought before. I should like to know if that agreement has been signed, and, if not, what is holding it up. Secondly, I understand that a separate agreement is being discussed in regard to lowering the duties on artificial silk and articles composed partially of silk, in return for a declaration by this country that for some specific period we will not impose taxes on foodstuffs. I should like very much to know in what state that agreement is to-day. Is it nearing completion, and, if not, why not?
I do not think much need be said in regard to Brazil. That country to-day imports a greater quantity of manufactured goods than we import from Brazil, but the report shows that there is still a very
large field for the development of trade and industry in that country. In respect of Uruguay, there is one appalling figure. Comparing our exports with those of the United States, and taking the years 1913 and 1928, we find that we have increased our exports by only some 18 per cent., whereas the United States has increased her exports by 600 per cent. Even when we take into consideration the War and the propinquity of the United States, I do not think that is sufficient to excuse the extraordinary disparity between those two figures, when you also consider the long period—half a century—of intimate relationship that has existed between this country and Uruguay, and also the fact that we are their best customers to-day and that there is no less than £40,000,000 of British capital invested in that country. In page 50 of the Report we have given to us the various rates for cable and wireless communication between this country and the countries visited by this mission. There is no item in the Report which requires closer investigation or more immediate action to be taken upon it than that in reference to the various rates which prevail to-day. The distance between Buenos Ayres and London is almost the same as the distance between New York and Buenos Ayres, and yet we find that the rate charged is 9d. per word more from Buenos Ayres to London than the rate charged from New York to Buenos Ayres. Why, I do not know. Usually these things are laid at the door of the Post Office.

The TEMPORARY-CHAIRMAN: I hope that the hon. and gallant Member will not pursue that matter further. The hon. Member the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department is not responsible; it is a matter for the Postmaster-General.

Mr. HACKING: Surely this matter is dealt with in the Report and we are entitled to bring up any matter contained in the Report in regard to any service? Representations, surely, can be made through the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department who is responsible for the Report.

The TEMPORARY-CHAIRMAN: Certainly, that is why I did not interrupt the hon. and gallant Member until he had ventilated the point, but I asked him not to pursue it, because it is not
a matter for which the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department is directly responsible.

Mr. HACKING: He could make representations.

Captain CAZALET: I bow to your ruling Sir Archibald. I only desired to direct the attention of the Minister responsible to what is actually stated in this Report. If I may keep strictly within the ruling given by your predecessor in the Chair, that we could have a full discussion actually on the policy proposed in this Report, I should like to quote the following sentence which seems to put the matter very succinctly:
The abnormality of the position"—
that is in regard to telephonic and cable rates between this country and South America—
is proved by the fact that it costs less to send a Press telegram to New York and retransmit it to Buenos Ayres … than it does to send a telegram direct from London to Buenos Ayres.
If we cannot have a detailed explanation of the reason I hope that we may, at any rate, have some information upon the matter. It is cheaper to send a message to the Argentine over a distance which is double as great, namely, first to New York and then on to Buenos Ayres, than it does to send it direct to that country. It seems almost incredible, when we come to discuss the question of telephonic communication, that this country, which has more money and responsibility, and more interests in the Argentine than any other country in Europe, is practically the only country of any size in Europe who has not got telephonic communication with the Argentine. We have to-day to telephone through Spain or through France or Germany. Naturally, in accordance with the ruling of the Chair, I have no desire to pursue the matter, but I think that it is fundamental to the question of the increase of trade between this country and South America.
As to the recommendation of the Report with reference to aircraft, France, Italy, Germany and Spain have all sent aeroplanes or airships to the Argentine and various other South American countries. It is quite clear that the manufacture of aeroplanes is going to be
one of the important industries of the future. This country alone has taken no steps whatever in this matter. I do not know whether we have an Air attaché in Buenos Ayres. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell us? I quite appreciate the fact that perhaps former Governments may have been responsible to a very large degree for not having put into practice many of the recommendations which find a place in this Report. I have no desire to make a party matter of these considerations, because the important thing is that something ought to be done to fulfil the recommendations in this excellent Report. Nobody expects the Minister to carry out all of them in a week's time. The Report has been out only a few days. I should like to hear from him what is his intention in regard to these suggestions and recommendations which come within the purview and the power of the Government, and what steps he intends to take to put them into execution as soon as possible?

Mr. MATTERS: I want to direct a few remarks mainly to the question of the work which has been done by the mission under Lord D'Abernon. I am delighted to think, as one who has lived in South America for some years, that at last in this House a considerable amount of interest has been evoked by a Report of such value as that produced by Lord D'Abernon. I would say, without the slightest suggestion of disrespect, that there is very little which is entirely new in that Report, or that was not known already to those familiar with the relations between this country and South America. When I read that Report, in the light of 15 years' experience, I heard echoed precisely what has been stated in relation to our trade in Latin America during the last 25 years. We have heard something this afternoon relative to the practical results of the Mission as distinct from recommendation; as to trade. That Mission concluded two most important and vital agreements on behalf of the commerce and industry of this country. The first was the agreement for reciprocal credits under which this country was to purchase an ear-marked lot of meat, grain and other produce which we were already importing, and on their side the Argentine Government were to purchase approximately £9,000,000 worth of material for railways
and other public works. If there is anybody in this House or in this country who is under the impression that we were able to wring that arrangement out of the Argentine Government, I would like to correct the impression. That country has always peculiarly been in a position to buy in any market which it chose, particularly in relation to railway and similar material. This agreement was entered into with Lord D'Abernon's Mission almost entirely because of the good will existing in that country towards Great Britain, and President Irigoyen himself announced that he was doing something on his own responsibility entirely, because he wished to show, on behalf of his country, their recognition of the debt of gratitude owed by them to Great Britain from the very first days when they became a republic.
The Argentine Republic has been in a favoured position to purchase railway materials in the United States, Germany and elsewhere. It has entered into this agreement in a most generous spirit, and in order to demonstrate to this country its belief in the slogan developed there by the Argentine Rural Society—"Buy from those who buy from us." They recognise that this country purchasing £75,000,000 worth of pastoral and agricultural produce per annum is the best customer they have, and that as far as possible they should purchase their materials or requirements here. The position of that agreement, I understand from Argentine official reports, is that it has been signed. It has been ratified by the Chamber of Deputies, but it has still to be ratified, and undoubtedly it will be approved, by the Argentine Senate. The position, as far as I understand it, in relation to the second very valuable agreement regarding the Silk Duties which was entered into largely as a result of this Mission but peculiarly and specially as a result of the very fine work done by our late Ambassador, Sir Malcolm Robertson, is that owing to the representations of France, Italy and other countries—and, in my view, these representations were unfortunately inspired to a great extent by ill-informed criticism in this House—the reduction by 50 per cent. of the duties on artificial silk and other silk goods had to be temporarily, at least, but, unfortunately, in my view, permanently, abandoned. It
was pointed out to the Argentine Government that it could not honour its treaties with other nations if it entered into this agreement, which would undoubtedly have conferred peculiar advantages on the manufacturers of this country. I am in a position to know that when this agreement was negotiated, the President of the Republic said specifically, "This is a concession to the United Kingdom, and is intended for no other country." Had there been no undue publicity in relation to it, I believe that that agreement would have gone through, that it would have proved acceptable to the Argentine Congress and would have been in operation at this moment.
Reference has been made to our general trading position with the Argentine Republic as revealed in the Report of Lord D'Abernon's Mission. A great deal of emphasis has lately been laid in connection with a certain policy, upon what is called the unfairness of our trading position with the Argentine Republic. It has been pointed out, quite accurately, that we purchase produce to the value of £75,000,000 or £76,000,000 per annum and that the Argentine Republic in return in 1928 bought from us goods to the value of only £31,000,000, leaving, on the face of it, a very large direct, adverse trade balance. Those who have been using those figures in connection with the policy to which I have referred have never emphasised the fact that there is, in addition, a very large trade for this country in what we call invisible exports. Lord D'Abernon points out that we have invested in the Republic between £500,000,000 and £600,000,000. There are at least £261,000,000 in four great railways alone, and of the entire mileage of railways in that country, approximately 20,000, British railways account for 16,000, which is a figure nearly as great as the entire railway mileage in this country. From these enormous investments of £500,000,000 to £600,000,000 this country must derive at least an annual interest income of somewhere about 5 per cent. That interest alone would largely readjust the unfavourable balance. In addition, we conduct a very great percentage of the entire shipping services of that country, most of its banking and almost the bulk of the insurance.
The hon. Member opposite said—I think he was somewhat confused—that the grain shipments from the Argentine
Republic were mostly in foreign ships. That is not quite accurate. It is true that the entire grain business of the Argentine Republic is conducted by three great combines of foreign origin, which have bought out old-established British firms that were there 60 or 70 years ago, but the bulk of the grain coming through to the Continent, and particularly to this country, is handled in British bottoms. If a charge can be made in regard to Argentina that the conditions of trade are unfair from the British point of view, I would ask those who maintain that charge what they have to say in relation to Brazil where, in 1928, we sold £16,000,000 worth of goods, and in return we bought only £4,000,000 worth. I sometimes wish that those who make criticisms in regard to our dealings with these great countries would be a little more consistent and logical. If it be unfair to trade with the Argentine Republic, it must be unfair to trade in the case of Brazil, where there is a great disparity, and the unfavourable balance is on the side of the Brazilian Republic.
A remark was also made that our industrialists should be ashamed of the general situation of British trade in South America, That remark, coming from the opposite side of the Committee, is not so drastic or iconoclastic as it would be if it came from this side; but I want to endorse it in its entirety. The whole position of British trade in Latin America is something of which we ought to be entirely ashamed. We have had, and still have, a wonderful opportunity for the expansion of our trade and commerce there, and it is my personal view that without any great effort, but with a little more energy, the export trade of this country to those very wealthy, progressive and highly civilised Republics could be increased by at least £50,000,000 within the next few years. Why is that not being done at the present time? If right hon. and hon. Members will study the D'Abernon Report carefully they will see precisely the reasons. One of the main facts is that this country is still lamentably ignorant regarding the South American Republics, and another fact is that very few of our business principals or directors will spare the time or take the trouble to visit those lands in which so much of our money is invested, and in which, as Lord D'Abernon has pointed
out, there are magnificent opportunities for us to do more business.
The question of the news services and cable and telegraphic charges is a longstanding grievance all over South America among the British people established there. To my knowledge, for the last 20 years one British Chamber of Commerce after another has been passing resolutions condemning the attitude and the tariffs of the British cable companies who have conducted the service there. It is cheaper, I believe, to send a cablegram from Buenos Aires or Rio de Janerio through these same British cable companies to France or Germany than it is to send a cablegram through to London. The hon. Member who raised the point was astounded, and asked the reason for it. There can be no reason other than the unreasonableness of the British cable companies themselves. They have entirely failed to respond in any patriotic or commercial sense to the insistent demand that they should bring their tariffs down to at least those charged by the United States companies.
In conclusion, I would like to make a very strong appeal to this Committee, to the British business men and industrialists in general to take Lord D'Abernon' Report, to weight it, to analyse it and, by all means, to act upon its recommendations. I cannot say that it is for the Government or for the Department of Overseas Trade itself to go out to do the business. If it were necessary I would be the first to stand up in this House and urge that we should create a State Trade and Export Department, but already the Department of Overseas Trade is doing a great amount of work which private enterprise, if it were fully efficient, should do for itself. The very fact that this nation has paid for the despatch of the British Economic Mission to South America is some evidence of State Socialism.

The TEMPORARY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must not pursue that subject on a Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. MATTERS: The D'Abernon Mission is not going automatically to bring business to manufacturers and private enterprise in this country. It is for our business men and private enterprise, in the light of the investigations that have been made by the mission, and in fulfilment of its recommendations, to show
some of the enterprise which is so vital to our trading welfare, to visit South America, and to get the orders which the D'Abernou Mission tells us are there.
We have in the Department of Overseas Trade one of the best organised and most efficient Departments of the public service, but it is lamentably understaffed and much smaller than it ought to be, in relation to the similar Department maintained by our greatest commercial competitor, the United States of America. Nevertheless, it is doing magnificent work. I am in a position to know that the service and information coming to the Department, particularly from Latin America, although we have the language problem to deal with there, is of a very high order. The sorry fact is that that information is either neglected in this country or the recommendations or suggestions contained in it are not followed up. I am glad to have learned, from a question which I put to the Secretary to the Department of Overseas Trade, that the principle of economic missions is to be extended this year very considerably and that, in addition to those planned for other countries, a mission is to be despatched to some of the Latin American Republics. I presume that it will visit such countries as Venezuela, Colombia, Chile and Peru. We are in great danger in this country of over-accentuating the importance of Argentina and Brazil, and forgetting that on the west coast of South America and in the Central American countries, where we should be at work, the field is practically untilled and is waiting for us.

Mr. ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: I beg to move "That Item C 1 be reduced by £100."
This Estimate is supplementary to the amount granted originally to what I am bound to say is the most interesting of all the Departments of Government. I had the pleasure of serving that Department for three years and I thoroughly enjoyed myself there. The hon. and gallant Member for North-East Bethnal Green (Major Nathan) asked the Secretary for the Department of Overseas Trade whether he had "inspired the new officers." My right hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hacking), who held the office of Secretary to the Department of Overseas Trade in the last Government, made a remark with which I entirely
agree. He said that the speech of the Minister left him entirely uninstructed on very vital points, and he asked for further information. I listened to the Minister's speech, and its effect upon me was that I was utterly amazed. It contained no note of inspiration. Here is the most romantic Department of the whole of our Government, dealing with the whole export trade of Britain, representing £800,000,000 a year, a larger sum than the revenue, a Department which calls for the full play of imagination and initiative, embracing trade to all parts of the world from the Moluccas to Vancouver, London to Singapore, Cape Town to Hong Kong, Sydney to Liverpool, and I felt as I listened to the Minister that if he went on much longer I should want to go and hang myself on the upper gallery rail: it was so depressing, and he was speaking in such an atmosphere of gloom. Why should he be so depressing, so dismal? Inspired me, indeed! No, he depressed me.
He went on to give us a bald statement of expenditure on what is nothing more than establishment matters. He did not tell us for what particular purposes the money was being spent. Dealing with the consular service, the commercial diplomatic service and the trade commissioners he went on to say that in that connection confusion has sometimes arisen owing to different terms. Confusion has arisen about the statements made in relation to these officers in the Department of Overseas Trade. I thought that he was going to give me a courteous reply to a question which I had intended to raise, and of which I had given notice to the Lord Privy Seal, owing to the fact that on 20th December the Lord Privy Seal made a statement on which I wrote him a private letter. I told him that I intended to raise it in this Debate, and he replied that he was sorry that he would not be present, but that the Secretary for the Overseas Trade Department would deal with the point.
6.0 p.m.
I do not know where the Minister has got his savings. There is a saving shown in the Supplementary Estimate amounting to £700 under Item C 1, "Commercial Diplomatic Service," and there is a saving of £850 under the Item D1, "Trade Commissioner Services." A statement was made in this House on
20th December last by the Lord Privy Seal that at one fell stroke the Conservative Government wiped out trade commissioners in 22 different countries in order to have £1,000 here—is the saving in this Supplementary Estimate that £1,000—or £2,000 there, and where was actually sacrificed trade amounting to £2,000,000 or £8,000,000 a year. I asked the Lord Privy Seal to give me the information, and he has deputed that task to my hon. Friend the Secretary for the Overseas Trade Department. Where are the 22 posts which have been wiped out in one fell stroke among the trade commissioners in 22 different countries? I have charged my memory. I was at the Department for three years, and all that I know is that we wiped out one trade commissioner at Singapore—he is being restored—that there were eight commercial diplomatic service men abolished in Bulgaria, Colombia, Hong Kong, Persia, Peru, Portugal, Switzerland, Uruguay, not trade commissioners. It is true that we terminated a post in Cologne after the end of the military occupation, and one at Denmark in 1926 and two posts in 1927 in Russia on the termination of diplomatic relations. Staffs were reduced in Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Spain, Turkey, United States, hut all the posts were maintained. These two Russian posts have been restored. I submit that while we have reduced staffs in the Argentine, Brazil, Belgium, Spain, Turkey and the United States, there has been no wiping out of 22 trade commissioners at one fell stroke such as was indicated by the Lord Privy Seal. I want to ask for the justification for this statement of the Lord Privy Seal, who told us that he had examined the figures and found that the Conservative Government at one fell stroke had wiped out trade commissioners in 22 different countries, and had actually sacrificed trade amounting to £2,000,000 or £8,000,000 per year. I heard the speech in which he made that statement and I should like to hear the justification for it. The Lord Privy Seal is a grave and dignified Minister of the Crown and is engaged on a very important task. He is trying to do his work in a dignified way, and but for the fact that I know that he does not talk with his tongue in his cheek or try to
bluff anyone, I should say that he was trying to bluff the House when he told us on 20th December that 22 trade commissioners have been wiped out at one fell stroke.
I now pass to what is a much more serious matter—the Report of Lord D'Abernon. It is a lucid, succinct, brave and definite Report, and like everyone else I wish to be allowed to thank the gentlemen who took the trouble to go abroad on the Trade Commission, and who have drawn up such a Report for our benefit. On the cover might be written the slogan which we adopted in the Department of Overseas Trade in my time. It amplifies what we then said, and what the manufacturers and merchants of this country will not fully realise in these changed conditions; that goods do not sell themselves. That was our slogan. There is a great deal to be learned from this Report if we read between the lines. The leitmotiv of the Report is that we must get on our feet, travel abroad and get in personal touch with our customers, and not depend upon agents and overseas exhibitions. We must depend more upon ourselves, as I had to do in my young days, and get face to face with our customers. We can read in this Report that rationalisation does not only mean the rationalisation of production but also of the selling end of your business. It shows how unwise we are not to group our trades and firms and rationalise the selling end instead of having half a dozen overlapping firms filching trade from one another in Argentine or Brazil. They should be grouped under one selling agency, and by this means would be more efficient to capture more trade between these countries and ourselves. As shown in the Report, the personal factor still plays the paramount part in the selling of goods.
I have had a good deal of experience myself and I know something of what exhibitions abroad mean. I also had three years at the Department of Overseas Trade, and had to think out these same problems for myself. Let me give this warning to hon. Members. We often exhibit in foreign exhibitions to please friendly nations. They wish us to help them to make a good show in the exhibition, but from my personal experience as a private trader and as a
Minister of the Crown, I do not believe very much in exhibitions abroad as a means of increasing our exports. Merchants and manufacturers would do much better with their time and money if they went abroad themselves on their own account, carrying and exhibiting their own samples. They should visit their overseas customers themselves. The Report also shows the type of man you want in these countries. That is a very valuable section indeed. It hints that while education at a university is all very useful and delightful, and that it is desirable to have a commercial education, to write shorthand and speak Spanish, yet it is the live young man of initiative who sells the goods who is going to capture or create the trade; and the best training for that lad is not in a university or over a text book. There is nothing more fatal to trade than the text book expert on economics. We have seen that recently at Geneva. The President of the Board of Trade has done infinite mischief by his simple text book knowledge of economics and his lack of experience in the export markets. In this Report we can see that it is the man who knows his job, who has started on his job early in life, who is going to succeed as a trade winner. Give me a well-educated, eager boy who goes into trade before he is 18 years of age, not at 22. If you are going to send young men abroad, to Argentine or Brazil, to win back our trade position, the best university you can send them to is to send them out at 17 to learn business in the market places.
Let me now direct the attention of the Committee to the recommendations in the Report concerning Brazil. I am a little timid about Brazil. With all the natural wealth of that great country I cannot divest my mind of the knowledge—I will not press my point too far—that it does not pay to press trade too much with Brazil. We have made many bad debts there recently. The amount of bad debts we have made there in the last few years has probably put the balance on the whole into such a shape that we may sometimes fear we are getting a pound's worth of business for 30s. Therefore, I think we should not take steps to press credit business with Brazil too much. But there is a side which may be developed with considerable advantage.
There are three or four products of Brazil which might be developed, and we might finance the purchase of these things in such a way that we might have it harnessed to our selling to Brazil the goods she wants and which we make. We could take a couple of million bales of cotton from Brazil, and more fruit without injuning our trade with our Colonies and Dominions. We could take more of the high grade iron ore of Brazil, which would be very useful for our steel manufacturers. There is a good deal of high grade iron ore deposits in Brazil which could be developed. There is here at the moment a shortage of meat, and prices are rising. We cannot get the same quantity of meat from North America or from South America which we used to get; and if we could finance the improvement of the herds and the refrigerating processes for the production of beef in Brazil we might arrange for a contra sale of our goods to Brazil. This would result in a considerable increase in our mutual trade with that country.
Let me now turn to another page of the Report—and this is something which should be brought to the notice of the Brazilian Government. It is at the root of our trouble. Lord D'Abernon in his Report says:
Our capital investments in Brazil are estimated at a sum of the order of £300,000,000. … Brazil's need for foreign capital is pressing, and the country which supplies the capital will get the contracts. Naturally the investor will look for a sound and continuous financial policy on the part of the Government. On this point it may he said that although some States and municipalities have overborrowed, and some are still in default, the assets of the nation are so vast that its present liabilities should prove no undue burden.
That is all very well, and all very good, but Brazil must realise that if we are going to lend money, she must treat the confidence of the British investor in an honourable and generous way. There must be no defaults. We have put something like £150,000,000 into Mexico. As we invested our money in that country, in the same way as we are now asked to invest money in Brazil, the exports of Britain to Mexico rose. We lent money to the Mexican Government for the building of Mexican railways. That money enabled them to purchase the goods they needed in Britain. That helped our exports. We received in return paper and bonds, and those bonds to-day are not
worth, the paper on which they are written. The net result is that the £150,000,000 worth of exports went to Mexico as a gift. We must be careful how we lend money abroad, lest when we part with our goods, which appear as exports, they are nothing more than gifts to our foreign borrowers. Lord D'Abernon in his Report says:
In this connection we express the opinion that British trade with other countries will also benefit if our lending is concentrated on the countries where a commercial return is probable and where high tariffs do not constitute an impassable barrier.
I remember, and probably the Secretary for the Overseas Trade Department remembers also, that the Brazilian Tariff of 1900 injured us a great deal. It is no good lending money to Brazil if a tariff like that of 1900 prevents our goods going in. Some fiscal consideration must be given to us if we are to follow out the recommendation of the Commission and help Brazil with the development of her natural wealth. We should be allowed a chance of selling our goods to Brazil. We ought not to be kept out by a tariff which renders it impossible for us to have any trade in return. There is another very interesting paragraph in this report. I hope I am not wearying the Committee, but I have taken a great deal of interest in it; I have read it two or three times. It says:
The question arises whether it would be expedient to stimulate emigration from this country to South America. … Naturally, emigration to Argentina would contribute, if successful, to future friendship between our two countries. … "We hold that the attempt to discover suitable methods for the promotion of British emigration should not be abandoned. Further experiments should be made on new lines, possibly on the basis of assisted settlement.
I cannot pretend to give any opinion on this matter, but I would rather see emigration to His Majesty's Dominions. So far as the Argentine is concerned, there are £300,000,000 or £400,000,000 of money invested by British subjects in the Argentine railways and other undertakings and, I think, administered from London; and the addition of hard working Englishmen and women in the Argentine would strengthen the good feeling between ourselves and the Argentine, and to that degree would also assist trade between us.
I want to know also what the Government are going to do with this Report. I remember the Balfour Report, which took four years to produce. Everyone felt that he must have the Balfour Report, just as everyone thinks that he must have well-bound volumes of Burns and Shakespeare on his shelves, though they are seldom opened. Many offices had a copy of the Balfour Report. I wonder how many times it is now opened in any office. What are the Government going to do with the D'Abernon Report? I think that the Department; of Overseas Trade and the Board of Trade and the Treasury should each depute one man to sit down and analyse this Report and put into operation some of its recommendations. On page 36 there is a matter which should be dealt with at once. I refer to the very excessive duty upon bunker coal which goes into Brazil. I see that the Customs and bunker duty on a ton of coal is 10s. 10d.—a paralysing figure. With our coal trade needing outlets overseas, here is an occasion when the Minister could get into touch with the Secretary for Mines and the Foreign Office and see what can be done to get the Brazilian Government to reduce this burden on export of the coal to Brazil. There is another thing which might be dealt with by the Treasury, though I do not know off-hand how it could be done. On page 16 of the Report I find this:
We recommend that these aspects of British taxation should receive further consideration with the definite view of facilitating the participation of South American investors in British enterprises, especially when those enterprises are carried on in the investor's own country.
That means that we should do all that we can to help or induce the Argentinian or Brazilian investor to join their capital with ours.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman has himself said that this is a matter for the Treasury. The Secretary of the Department of Overseas Trade, of course, could not deal with it.

Mr. SAMUEL: I think that you are right, Mr. Chairman. But I fall back on your kindness and say that here is a question of policy laid down in this Report, and I submit that as this recommendation is made it should be carried out. It is true that the Treasury would have to deal with it. Will the Minister consider that paragraph? It is a very
important recommendation, and I leave it to the discretion of the Minister to find a way of carrying it out. I hope that the policy of these missions will be continued and that they will be sent not only to South America. I heard what an hon. Member said just now about Ecuador and Venezuela and Colombia, and so on. There are countries on the north-west coast of South America which possibly might be dealt with. There is also a country very much nearer home which might be brought inside this policy. It is a friendly country of whom we are the best customers. I refer to Denmark. I would like to see a mission and policy of this kind extended beyond South America to countries like Denmark.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman is now going too far. He says that this policy ought to be extended to other countries, and he must leave it at that.

Mr. SAMUEL: Again I think you are right, Mr. Chairman. I have perhaps trespassed further than I ought to have done. One other point I wish to raise, and it is a small point. That is the difficulty about the cabling of news to South America. I was shocked to hear yesterday, in reply to a question, that if we wish to send wireless telephonic messages to South America, even news, they have to go through France or Germany. That is a matter which ought to be put right.

The CHAIRMAN: That is a Post Office matter, and in any case I do not think that an economic mission has anything to do with it.

Mr. SAMUEL: I am the last person to wrangle with you over a point of Order. May I respectfully say that as you may not have read the Report, there is on page 50 a reference to cables, wireless and postal communication, and I am surveying the whole Report.

The CHAIRMAN: That may be in the Report, but the Minister responsible for this Supplementary Estimate is not responsible for those particular parts of the Report, and I do not see how the matter can come into our discussion. I have admitted a general discussion so far as the Economic Mission is concerned, but it must not be allowed to range too widely.

Mr. SAMUEL: I obey your ruling and content myself by saying that we must look into this wireless and telegraph question, and I leave it at that. I thank the Committee for having been so patient with me.

Major GLYN: I am sure that the House has listened with great interest to the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken. I remember the period when he was at the Department of Overseas Trade, but offhand I cannot remember whether the Balfour Report was issued when he was at the Department. I am told that it was not. At any rate I am sure of this—that no wiser words have ever been spoken by anybody in this Committee than the words as to the waste of time and money in making reports, and the apparent inability to put those reports into the hands of people who really can make use of them. In regard to this Vote there is one question to which I attach a great deal of importance. I believe that this Department is one of the most important departments of the State. I look upon it as a sort of scouting line to enable us to find places where we can develop our trade and so help unemployment here.
We have had many Debates about unemployment in this House, and I am afraid they have been a considerable waste o£ time, but in regard to this Department, if we make it known and make people realise its importance in the development of British trade, we shall do much to enable our people to get skilled work at the class of job to which they are accustomed. These valuable reports are obtained by the Department of Overseas Trade. Whether it is a matter of regulation or of obsession I do not know, but nearly every report has the word "Secret" or "Confidential" printed upon it. Sometimes I think that reports which would be very useful to British traders would be made of greater use if they did not bear those words. The money that we are voting towards this Department would be better used for the trade of the country if these very valuable reports could be used more extensively. Recently, when travelling on the Continent, I visited a country in which I found that there was practically no liaison between the local British Chamber of Commerce and the Department of Overseas Trade. I suggest that
one means by which we could develop trade in many countries would be by a closer liaison between the Chambers of Commerce in those places and the Department.

The CHAIRMAN: I am rather afraid that the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. A. M. Samuel) has precluded the hon. and gallant Gentleman from discussing that. We are now confined entirely to discussion of Item C 1 in the Estimate.

Major GLYN: I was afraid that that would happen as a result of my hon. Friend moving a reduction of the Vote by £100. I understand that we are now confined entirely to Russia and matters connected with that country?

The CHAIRMAN: Not matters connected with that country, but matters connected with these commercial secretaries.

Major GLYN: That confines the Debate within very narrow limits. I do not think that that was the intention of my hon. Friend in moving the reduction of the Vote. With regard to Russia and the position occupied by these salaried officials, I would like to know how many reports have so far been made by these gentlemen, and what steps have been taken to make use of the reports, through the Press or otherwise, so that trade with Russia can be encouraged, provided always that the reports of these commercial representatives give some indication to our manufacturers that if they send out their goods they will receive the money.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Gentleman was probably not present when the question was raised as to the discussion of these matters. I laid it down that the only thing that we could discuss under Item C 1 was the appointment of these commercial secretaries, their duties, and the cost to the country. We are confined to that. These officers are only an addition to diplomatic service work.

Major GLYN: Do I understand that if this reduction can be got out of the way the Debate can go back to the general terms in which it began?

The CHAIRMAN: If the reduction is got out of the way the Debate would go
back to the whole of the Estimate, but it would not widen the discussion of Russia.

Major GLYN: That limits the discussion so much that I shall draw my remarks to a close.

Captain WATERHOUSE: There is one point regarding Item C 1 which has been raised indirectly, and that is as to the salary of a first grade commercial secretary and the sort of man that can be attracted by that salary. It has been suggested both that the salary is too big and that it is too small. The Minister might say that those two arguments cancel one another and that the salary-is correct. I suggest that both statements may be true, because everything depends on the duties that the official has to fulfil in a country of unusual and extraordinary conditions. If his duty is merely one of reporting, I think that a man with a smaller salary could do the job. But probably his duties are much larger and cover a much greater field in Russia than in other countries. I myself have had most valuable service rendered to me by our commercial counsellor in Paris, and I greatly value the activities of this gentleman.
I want to be clear on one point. Is this gentleman who has been sent to Moscow capable of dealing widely, and at the same time closely, with the various industries which may be revived in Russia? Has he a fairly accurate knowledge of engineering? Is he acquainted with the textile trades? If so, with what branches of the textile trade or of engineering? It is obvious that when you get the trade of a whole Empire concentrated in the Government of that Empire, you have to deal with a situation different from that in any country where the trade is in the hands of individuals. In the case of other countries we can send representatives who can deal directly with the purchasers of goods, but in the case of Russia there is only one purchaser, or only one organisation of purchasers, and we ought to be clear that the gentlemen who are sent over there are well able to handle not one branch of trade alone, but the whole of the potential exports of the British nation to Russia.

Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSON: I do not quite understand what is to be
the exact position of these two commercial secretaries. Are they to enjoy what is called full diplomatic immunity? In the past, when the Russian Government sent commercial secretaries to this country, a certain number of them enjoyed diplomatic immunity, and I think we ought to have reciprocity in that matter. If the Soviet Government are going to send commercial agents to this country who enjoy diplomatic immunity, we ought to insist upon the same full diplomatic immunity for the gentlemen whom we send to Russia. I understand that the Foreign Secretary is, at present, negotiating with the Soviet representative some kind of arrangement very similar to the Trade Agreement of 1921 and what is known as the Commercial Treaty of 1924. Under that Treaty, some of the Soviet trade secretaries had full diplomatic immunity. The second question which I want to put to the hon. Gentleman is, has he made arrangements that the messages which these representatives send here from Russia will be uncensored? I was told by the Foreign Secretary in answer to a question the other day, that messages now sent from Russia are heavily censored. It is no good having trade secretaries in Russia if their messages to this country, concerning trade in Russia, are to be heavily censored by the Soviet Government. We should also like to know are they going to use the diplomatic cipher, or some code which is recognised as being outside the machinery of the censorship in Soviet Russia? That is an important point but one which I need not elaborate now.
My third question is, what are the instructions which are being given to these two gentlemen? The hon. Gentleman realises no doubt that a very bitter controversy is going on at present in regard to what are known as the confiscated properties, that is to say the factories, mines, lands and businesses which belonged to British subjects a few years ago and were confiscated after the revolution by the Soviet Government. I do not think it would be at all fair if these two trade secretaries were sent over to Russia to do any bargaining or dealing in respect of those confiscated businesses, until negotiations have been completed over here with the Soviet Government. It is not fair that we should send trade secretaries to Russia to carry out
deals concerning businesses which, a few years ago, belonged to British subjects who are now living in this country dispossessed and ruined by those confiscations. I hope these gentlemen will, as far as possible, avoid dealing with these particular confiscated businesses in their trade negotiations, until the negotiations now proceeding between the Soviet representative and the British Foreign Secretary have been completed satisfactorily.

Major HARVEY: I was about to raise the question which has just been asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson), as to how far these trade representatives are going to deal with the question of British claims in Russia, or if they are going to take any interest at all in that matter? Beyond that, however, there is a much wider question, and that is the question of whether we are justified at all, in incurring the cost of this representation in Russia. Before referring further to the larger question, I wish to direct the attention of the hon. Gentleman to the house rent allowances in respect of these Grade I and Grade III officers respectively. The Grade I officer gets a house rent allowance of £250, and the Grade III officer gets £200. If I am correctly informed, they probably live in the same house, and I do not see why their allowances should differ. As to the whole question of whether we are justified in appointing these representatives to Russia or not, I think it would be in order and would help to put the matter in the right perspective to quote some figures concerning the trade which has been done with Russia in recent years compared with the total volume of trade. The Committee will then see how far the salaries which we are now asked to vote are justified.
Exports to Russia in 1927 were 4.5 millions of pounds; in 1928, 2.7 millions, and in 1909 3.7 millions, while the total of our exports to foreign countries were in those years, 382.5 millions in 1927, 396 millions in 1928 and 405 millions in 1929. The total exports to Russia represented less than 1 per cent. of our total exports to all other countries in the world. Possibly the appointment of trade representatives may alter this position. I do not wish to weary the Committee with details, but I may mention also that the total of
our imports from Russia represents less than 3 per cent. of the total imports from all the other countries in the world. In these circumstances I think it rather doubtful whether we are justified in an expenditure of, roughly, £4,000 per annum for these two trade secretaries. I should like again to urge on the hon. Gentleman to consider the question of whether they are going to take any interest whatever in the matter of the British claims in Russia.

Mr. GILLETT: I understand that the moving of a reduction in this particular item precludes me from replying in this speech to a number of the points which have been raised in the earlier part of the Debate, but, as soon as this Amendment has been disposed of, I hope to be able to deal with those questions. At the moment we are concerned solely with the question of the appointment of the two commercial secretaries in Russia and, in the first instance, I had better explain some of the figures in this connection to which references have been made. An hon. Member has said that I was exceedingly dull and depressing in my last speech but if he had had to sit for nearly five hours, as I had, listening to the endless repetition of his hon. Friends, he would realise that the remarkable thing was not that I made a depressing speech, but that I was able to make any speech at all. The fact and the lateness of the hour on that occasion also partly explains why it was impossible for me in the short time left at my disposal to go into the figures but I am quite prepared to give hon. Members the fullest information which they desire.
The first question raised was in connection with local allowances and representation allowances for these officers. I understand that for officers employed in extra-European countries and in Russia and Turkey, local allowances are payable in order to compensate them for the higher cost of living in those countries as compared with England. Broadly speaking though, it is decided in each case what the amount of the allowance should be, it is practically impossible to say how much extra allowance should be given to a representative in, say, New York, as compared with a representative, say, in Italy, or some other country. There is no fixed
scale for these local allowances. What has to be taken into account at the same time is the fact that, in most cases, a bonus is given. Hon. Members will see a reference to the bonus in another part of the Estimate which we are not discussing at the moment but I may be allowed to mention it, because the position as regards these Russian appointments cannot be fully understood without some explanation of that matter. The bonus now paid to those officers is payable in accordance with the Bonar Law Award of 1922 under which overseas officers received part compensation in respect of post-War increase in the cost of living, measured in terms of sterling in the country in which they were stationed. In the case of Russia it was found impossible to give a bonus because of the difference between existing conditions and pre-War conditions. That difference was so extraordinary that there were really no facts upon which to base ordinary calculations and instead of giving any bonus the local allowance in that case has been somewhat increased.

Sir H. YOUNG: What allowances are these?

Mr. GILLETT: I am now dealing with the local allowances and the figure which appears here in the Estimate shows that in the case of Grade I this allowance is £300, and in the case of Grade III it is £250.

Mr. HACKING: Can the hon. Gentleman give the Committee any idea as to the difference in the cost of living as between Russia and Turkey? He will notice the difference between the allowances in those countries.

Mr. GILLETT: The right hon. Gentleman will probably find that the representative in Turkey has a bonus but I do not know. That is what I am trying to explain—that in most cases there is a bonus fixed in the manner I have mentioned and in the case of Russia owing to the difficulty of fixing it, the allowance has been increased to compensate for loss of bonus.

Mr. HACKING: May we take it that the total salaries, including allowances, are approximately the same in each case?

Mr. GILLETT: That is the intention. It is the desire of the Department to arrange these things so as to make
matters equitable as between the different countries which these representatives have to act. The second item about which questions have been asked relates to representation allowances. These are given to cover the necessary expenses of official entertaining, etc., which fall upon a Government representative, and in connection with this allowance there is a definite scale of which I have the figures here. These follow the ordinary scale, and I do not know that the Committee will want the detailed figures.

Sir H. YOUNG: Are we to understand that the scale is applied to representation allowances in the case of all commercial secretaries?

Mr. GILLETT: Yes, I understand that all commercial secretaries, and trade commissioners, according to their grade, receive a definite representation allowance and I can give the right hon. Gentleman the details of the scale if he so desires. In this case, as I have said, the allowances follow the ordinary scale. The next point is as regards house rent allowances and these allowances are also based on a scale. The point was raised by one hon. Member that two officers living in the same house should not have different house rent allowances. As a matter of fact, if the officers are living in the buildings of the Embassy they do not get house rent allowance. I do not actually know what is the position in this respect in Moscow at the present time, but I am under the impression that to a great extent the staff of the Embassy there are living together in buildings which are the property of the Embassy.
Therefore, you will find that the commercial secretary, grade I, starting at the bottom of the scale with £1,200, has a local allowance of £300, a representation allowance of £300, and a house rent allowance of £250, making a total of £2,050. This Vote only covers a certain limited period of time. In the case of the grade I official, the figure works out at £427, because he has been there two and a-half months. In the second case, there is a salary of £600, a local allowance of £250, a representation allowance of £100, and a house rent allowance of £200, making £1,150 altogether, and it is expected that he will have been there three months, which makes the total £288. The right hon. Member asked me how the figure
of £810 was made up; that is, the outfit allowance. The grade I representative receives £515 and the grade III man £295. That is all based also on a definite scale; it is a regular calculation based on the scale of pay.

Mr. HACKING: Has it all to be expended on outfit?

Mr. GILLETT: It is a contribution made to the officer concerned in order to pay his expenses of moving and all other such expenses, but it is a lump sum.

Captain WATERHOUSE: Have these gentlemen been there three months this year, and is their job finished?

Mr. GILLETT: That is up to the end of the financial year. The only other item that concerns us now is the figure of £700 for savings. As a matter of fact, it is impossible to get the figures as to how it is made up. Very careful investigation has been made in my Department, and various headings have been gone into, and I am afraid I should have to read out a list of 20 or 30 countries and give a number of small amounts.

Mr. HACKING: Are there no large amounts in any one country?

Mr. GILLETT: None whatever.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Then will the hon. Gentleman tell me what the Lord Privy Seal meant by saying that at one stroke they wiped out trade commissioners in 22 different countries?

Mr. GILLETT: I should be out of order in answering that question.

Mr. SAMUEL: Then where in these figures can we identify the £1,000 here and the £2,000 there which have been saved?

The CHAIRMAN: Ministers of other Departments are not responsible for what the Lord Privy Seal says, but in any case the hon. Gentleman cannot give an answer, because we are confined now to Item C 1.

Captain WATERHOUSE: But surely this saving is not confined to Russia, but is a general saving over a number of countries.

The CHAIRMAN: As far as this Estimate goes, it appears to be a sawing on
Item C 1, because it says, "Savings … under this Subhead," which is C 1, and that is what we are confined to now.

Captain WATERHOUSE: The hon. Gentleman just said that this was an accumulation of some 20 small sums from different nations.

The CHAIRMAN: We are confined to Item C I because of the reduction moved of £100.

Mr. GILLETT: To continue with regard to Russia, the only point we have to consider in our Department was whether, seeing that an Ambassador was appointed, we should follow the usual custom of having two commercial diplomatic officers connected with the Embassy, and the reason why we appointed two was because all the other great Embassies have two commercial representatives, and we felt that at any rate we should follow the same precedents. I cannot see why any hon. or right hon. Gentleman should think it strange that we should recommend such an appointment when once we had an Ambassador appointed. As a matter of fact, if we had not appointed these two representatives, I can only think that hon. Members opposite would have said, "How illogical it is to have an Ambassador without commercial diplomatic officers." I can well imagine that if that had happened, we should equally have had to face the criticism of hon. Members opposite. The right hon. Member for Sevenoaks has an extraordinary idea that because in Russia they have a new idea of control of industry, the Government should try and compel them to alter their system. To my mind, that is utterly absurd. If any country decides that its trade is to be in the hands of the Government, it is not our business to go and suggest that it should be altered. We have to take things as they are.

Sir H. YOUNG: If the hon. Member will honour me by consulting my observations, he will see that I expressly disavowed that.

Mr. GILLETT: I understood the right hon. Gentleman said that the Russian Government conducted their trade in this way, and that he hoped very much we might assist in bringing about a change.

Mr. HACKING: The hon. Gentleman has said that if he had not appointed the commercial secretaries after the Ambassador had been appointed, we should have made a complaint on that score, but let me remind him that in his own words it was an afterthought with him. It was not because the Ambassador was appointed that they necessarily appointed the commercial secretaries, but, in his own words, he said:
When there was a resumption of relations with Russia, and an Ambassador had been appointed to Moscow, the question came up as to whether there should be a commercial attaché appointed also."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th February, 1930; col. 1734, Vol. 235.]
It was a second thought.

Mr. GILLETT: No, it was not a second thought, because the appointment of an Ambassador does not rest with my Department, but is, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, a matter for the Foreign Office. When the Foreign Office had appointed an Ambassador, then the question came before my Department for consideration whether or not we were to follow the ordinary procedure and appoint commercial attachés connected with the Embassy.

Mr. HACKING: Have the Foreign Office anything to do with the appointment of commercial secretaries?

Mr. GILLETT: The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that we are the Department which is responsible for the appointment of these commercial attachés. We decided that it was advisable to have these two men, in order to see how trade could be developed between this country and Russia. In answer to some hon. Members who asked who these officials were—I can say that both of them speak Russian. One of them was nearly nine years at Vladivostok and from there he went into the consular service at Formosa. The other was in Rumania. In both cases, at any rate, they took an interest in Russia, and one has for a number of years lived in a far distant part of the old Russian Empire.
The only other point that finally emerges is as to what has happened as the result of these appointments. They have only been there for a very short time, and during that period one of them has been largely occupied in doing consular work,
and has hardly had time to devote himself to the actual work for which he has been sent out; but it is intended to send a consular representative to Moscow, and I hope he will then be able to take up his own work. In view of the peculiar position of trade in Russia, and the difficulty of knowing exactly whether trade will be opened up in the best way by approaching the Government of Russia in Moscow, or by linking up with the representatives of Russia in this country, we are bound at the present time to be in an experimental stage with regard to the work of these two representatives. Naturally, they are under the guidance and direction of our Ambassador in Moscow, as is the case with all those who are attached to any Embassy, and as time goes on they will be able to see to what extent they can open up our trade in Moscow.
Before our present Ambassador went to Moscow, he took the opportunity of seeing a large number of English firms interested in trade with Russia. He interviewed them in my Department, and he gained a large amount of information from them. He has that information with him, which, no doubt, he has passed on to the two commercial representatives, and I hope that when they have had a little longer time in the country, they will be able to find out what is the most effective way of opening up trade there. We shall certainly find that their appointment will be a great advantage to this country, even for no other reason than that we shall be able to get a certain amount of information, which will be of great service to us.
As I said earlier in the Debate, we were asked to appoint those officers by firms in this country having business interests in Russia. Although some people believe there is hardly any trade going on between this country and Russia, as a matter of fact there are a number of firms in London and other parts of the country who have very considerable financial interests in Russia, and there is no reason why those financial interests should not be watched over by our representatives in Russia, just as much as they are watched over by our representatives in any other part of the world. The only logical thing to do was to make these appointments. Whether or not hon. Members opposite agree with the renewal
of relations between this country and Russia, it still seems to me that, that event having taken place, the only logical line is the one we have taken. Any other line would have been futile and could only have resulted in hindering a renewal of friendly relations between us and Russia.

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: May I have an answer—

7.0 p.m.

Mr. GILLETT: The answer to the right hon. Gentleman's questions are as follows: Our representatives will have diplomatic immunity—that is the first question. The information will come over in the Foreign Office bag—that is the answer to the second question. As to the third question, the right hon. Gentleman asked me questions which really are hardly within the scope of my Department, and I am afraid it is quite impossible for me to give a definite answer to him on his other question.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: The Minister has done his best very courteously, as he always does. He has made the best of a very unsatisfactory case. We do not wish to embarrass him, and I therefore beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question again proposed.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: I rather regret and resent the attitude taken up by the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department in regard to the speeches which have been made from this side of the House. His reference to the 4½ hours during which be has had to listen to wearisome repetition from these benches seems to me rather discourteous. He seems to have forgotten that he is a Minister of the Crown and that it is his duty to listen to representations from all sides of the House. He has lost sight of the time when we sat on those benches and had to listen, not for 4½ hours, but for 4½ years, to the wearisome reiteration of himself and his friends. I listened very carefully to the Ruling which your predecessor in the Chair gave with regard to the report of the British Economic Mission to South America. You will correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that, in view of the fact that this is entirely a new service, the actual policy which prompted the sending of this mission to South America may be
called under review. Tibia mission, for which we are asked to vote money now, is going to cost the taxpayer a very considerable sum, something like £5,000. Unless action is taken on the recommendations which are contained in its report, it is going to be an absolute waste of public money. This report is much too good to be thrown into the waste paper basket or pigeon-holed in some back room of the Board of Trade, but, unless its recommendations are acted upon, it is converting this valuable report into waste paper. I will therefore press the hon. Gentleman to tell us what action he and the Government intend to take with regard to the recommendations in this very valuable report.
I rather regret that this Mission confine themselves solely to the east coast of South America. When they were there, they might have extended their radius of action rather more and, without any increase in the sum spent, they could have spread their activities over a wider area and have visited countries where British trade is more likely to receive benefit than the countries which they visited. The money would have been spent better if they had visited Chile instead of some of the more remote parts of Brazil. They could have crossed by the Trans-Andean railway to Valparaiso in Chile, and there they could have made inquiries into the state of trade and trade relations with this country. Formerly, until a short time ago, our trade relations with Chile were of a substantial character. They might then have proceeded up the west coast of South America and visited the other countries. It is not my intention to dwell unduly long on what this Mission could have done, but, in my opinion, it is almost disastrous that they did not visit Venezuela instead of portions of Brazil. It is perfectly amazing the development which has taken place in that country in the last 20 years, and unfortunately the development has been done almost entirely by the United States and not by this country. If we turn to the report we find throughout constant references to the currency of these South American Republics—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Dunnico): I do not want to conflict with the
Ruling given by the Chairman of Ways and Means, but obviously on the lines now followed by the hon. and gallant Member he could wander over a great part of the world. The real question for the Committee is whether this money should have been spent and whether the spending of the money has been justified.

Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: Thank you, I shall not transgress on your Ruling again; at any rate, in that particular respect. I always bow to whatever Ruling you may give. We find constant references to the currency of the Argentine, Brazil, and the other countries. In the Argentine it is what is known as the gold peso. Unfortunately, it is no longer the gold peso, but it has become the paper peso. Part of the effect which that has had on this country is to make goods we sell more expensive and make goods they sell to us cheaper. That has had the effect of restricting our exports to the Argentine and encouraging imports from that country. Of course, it may be questionable whether the hon. Member has any influence with regard to the currency of the Argentine, but I would point out that in the days not so long ago when the currencies of Europe were depreciating to a large extent we were constantly asked by hon. Members opposite, many of whom now sit on the Government bench, to take steps to stabilise these falling currencies. I am sure they would not have suggested that line of action if they had not theories they could have advanced and cures they could have provided for those depreciating currencies. I say now that they have an opportunity of rectifying these currencies—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Member cannot discuss questions of currency on the Vote for the Department of Overseas Trade.

Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: No. I was merely pointing out that when hon. Members opposite occupied these benches they expected us to do it.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Possibly they were out of order as the hon. and gallant Member is now.

Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: If we turn to page 6 of the report, we find that a comparison is drawn between the trade we used to do with the Argentine in the
old days and the trade we do there now. It states that we have excelled in railway construction and ship building, but that others nave now taken the place which might have been ours, especially in aviation, road construction, and motor transport. It is stated that in the first six months of 1929 the Argentine imported 31,000 motor vehicles. Her agricultural requirements were on a corresponding scale. The report says that no doubt our failure was due to high prices and unsuitability. What steps has the hon. Gentleman taken to get the builders of agricultural machinery in this country to adapt the implements they turn out to Argentine requirements? Everyone knows that fanning in the Argentine is on a very large scale, and consequently their requirements in agricultural machinery are for engines and machines of the very largest kind. Reapers which are suitable in this country for reaping a five or ten-acre field are practically useless in the Argentine where their fields are of 1,000 or 2,000 acres. Has the hon. Gentleman sent particulars of the Argentine agricultural requirements to the well-known builders of agricultural machinery in this country?
Turning to the question of motor vehicles, why have we fallen so hopelessly behind in the race for the markets of South America? There is one reason only, and that is the unsuitability of the engines fitted to British cars. What steps is he taking to represent to motor manufacturers in this country the requirements of South America? That is the direct responsibility of the Government, and the hon. Gentleman represents not only his own Department but the Government as a whole in this case. This unsuitability of motor vehicles sent out from England to the Argentine could be altered by a simple step, the alteration of taxation. I will not dwell on that, lest I be ruled out of order, but I do ask him to make representations to the Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to the taxation of motor engines, which is at the present time handicapping our manufacturers hopelessly in all the markets not only of South America but of the world.
Further on, we come to a very significant fact under the heading of finance, and it is rather tragic. Whereas prior to the War—or more definitely 20 years
ago—practically all the Argentine loans were floated in this country, to-day none of them are floated in this country, and for one reason only. The Government of that day in their wisdom thought fit to place a tax of 2 per cent. upon all foreign loans floated in this country. Could there possibly be a better example of killing the goose that lays the golden eggs? From that day to this not a single Argentine loan has been floated in this country to our great loss in the way of commission, Income Tax, and Super-tax, because Argentine loans floated in this country—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is a question for the Treasury and not for the Department of Overseas Trade.

Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: I thought the hon. Gentleman represented, not only his Department, but also the Government, and I was asking him to make representations to his Government on the subject. As you do not wish me to enlarge on the question, I will conclude by asking him once more what steps he intends to take to bring into effect the recommendations contained in this very valuable report. Unless it is acted upon, it is valueless; it is a waste of money, and it is the business of this Committee to criticise severely any waste of public money. Unless the hon. Gentleman's Department take action upon the recommendation, this £5,000 which we are asked to vote to-day is absolutely wasted.

Captain WATERHOUSE: I want to ask questions on one or two points. In regard to the additional trade commissioner, grade II, sent to Sydney, is he additional to another commissioner there, or is he additional to the whole staff? The hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) rather criticised this appointment. I have heard the hon. Gentleman speak several times in this House, and I have not heard him express any statement with which I cannot agree, but on this point, I disagree with him although we are placed in similar positions in regard to our constituencies. In Wolverhampton, a factory has had to dismiss half its operatives because of the Australian tariff, and in any constituency one firm has had to dismiss 1,400 operatives, partly because of the Australian tariff and partly because of another matter which will be discussed to-morrow.
I feel strongly that it is not only advisable, but essential, that the hon. Gentleman's Department should send trade commissioners to our Dominions, to get into touch with their traders, and to keep in touch with our traders at home. Has the hon. Gentleman given categorical instructions to these commissioners to keep in touch with the centres of industry in this country? Is he accessible to the Leicester Chamber of Commerce, or the Wolverhampton Chamber of Commerce, or the chambers of commerce in the West Riding of Yorkshire if they wish to approach him on any matters concerned with their industries! If we get real live active men in these jobs, they can do more than anything else to open the eyes of the Australian Government to the effect of their tariffs.
On the D'Abernon Report, I take a view at variance with that expressed in some parts of the House. Naturally, we value this Report at its true worth, and, coming from a body of commissioners such as this, it is worth the very closest study. On page 18, after pointing out that we have certain definite and natural advantages in our trade with the Argentine, the Report says that these advantages have
not prevented a rather high tariff on British goods, which receive the same customs treatment as those of other origin, suffer the same difficulties from anomalies of classification and somewhat harsh system of fines, and are affected rather more detrimentally than others by the incidence of the ad valorem duties.
A little lower down I see a reference to the General Strike and to the coal stoppage which might well be noticed. On the next page come these very significant words:
But for the large orders for plant placed in England during recent years by British railway and other companies in Argentina for their programmes of extension and development, which fortunately coincided with the worst period of depression in British industry, the falling off in the proportion of British trade would have been far more pronounced.
In the next paragraph, they refer to the very heavy duty of 100 per cent. on artificial silk, which there is classed with silk. That is one side of the picture, one side of the trade exchange, and, when we go on two pages later, we find that
the Mission discussed with various bodies and interests in Argentina, notably with
the authorities of the Buenos Aires Bourse, the possibility of even further development of the export of Argentine products to the United Kingdom.
We find that they all agree that there were no restrictions at all on those exports; they seem to have had a kind of mutual congratulation meeting, and one wonders whether these commissioners fully realise what they had written in their Report. On the one side, we were hampered in every effort we made to import into Argentina, and on the other side, they congratulated that country that we threw open our markets to them entirely. I welcome that on one condition only, and that is that the hon. Gentleman can negotiate in some way to get increased exports from this country to the Argentine. If he cannot do that, I should submit that he should see whether a part of what we import from the Argentine cannot better be imported from one of our Dominions, where we could send our goods, and make employment in this country better.

Mr. GILLETT: There are one or two matters which I still have to answer in connection with the Trade Commissioner Service. The question that was specially asked was how the sum of £890 was divided up. This is the outfit allowance for the trade commissioners made up of Singapore £275, and Sydney £315. Then there was an outfit allowance for the three chief clerks of £100 each. On the question of travelling allowance, the first item is quite clear; the second item is the travelling expenses of trade commissioners. One of the new trade commissioners was a chief clerk who was promoted, and was at that time in Melbourne; therefore, he had only to remove from Melbourne to Sydney. The other one was appointed from Tokio, and therefore had to go from Tokio to Singapore. The travelling expenses of these two officials represented £245.
The third item represents, not only the travelling expenses of two new chief clerks coming from London, but also a third chief clerk to take the place of the one who had been promoted a trade commissioner. That rather large sum of £1,155 represents travelling expenses of three of those chief clerks from London to Australia and Singapore. The next point was about the trade commissioner in Australia. The British Economic Commission, which
recently visited the Dominions, urged us to strengthen our representation there, and it was finally decided that the best way of helping the two trade commissioners at present in Australia was to put a second one at Sydney to relieve the head trade commissioner, so as to allow him to travel to other parts of Australia. It was purely a matter of whether it was wise to do it in that way, or place a new one in a third city.
I now pass to the question of the D'Abernon Mission. I agree with hon. Members who have stated that we are very much indebted to Lord D'Abernon and the members of the Mission for the work that they have done. We have had an exceedingly useful report, and a number of questions have been asked me as to what is going to be done with it. It has been overlooked by many Members that, although the Report was published by my Department, it is, as a matter of fact, addressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. Therefore, the answer to many of these questions does not rest in my hands. The Foreign Office, as I understand, are going to take up the various points that have been raised, and will get into communication with the Departments concerned and draw their attention to these matters. Among the Departments which will be concerned will naturally be my own Department, in connection with the strengthening of the oversea representation.

Mr. HACKING: The hon. Gentleman speaks as if the Foreign Office were alien to him. Is he aware that he is Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs?

Mr. GILLETT: That is correct, but the Overseas Trade Department is technically an independent body, though it is partly under the Board of Trade and partly under the Foreign Office. I believe that there can be found traces in their organism of what may be termed an independent existence. I will go further into it with the right hon. Gentleman if he likes to take it up in private. To return to the important matter of the D'Abernon Mission. The first points that have been referred to is in connection with the reciprocal credit agreement. This agreement proposes the opening of credits in Buenos Aires and
London by the respective Governments in order to purchase materials produced in the United Kingdom by Argentina, whilst the British Government would purchase food supplies from Argentina. The final form of the reciprocal trade agreement is still before the Senate, and we are waiting their final decision. An hon. Member asked me what had happened to the other agreement dealing with artificial silk duties. This proposal was not in the actual Report of the Mission, but resulted from it. The suggestion was that the silk duty should be lowered in Argentina and that against that a declaration should be made by the British Government with regard to duties and restrictions upon the importation of Argentine products. Certain difficulties have arisen on the proposal, and the declaration has never been made, and the matter is still waiting the consideration of Argentina. It is no use my dealing with the other matters connected with this very interesting Report.
The Report has given us a most valuable bird's eye view of the conditions of some of these countries in South America, as well as many valuable suggestions. I was asked whether we contemplate sending another mission to South America. Personally, I cannot say anything definite on the point, but we are certainly considering it, and if we can feel sure that it would be likely to prove as successful as this one has been I think something will be done along those lines. Various other matters connected with the Report will be considered by the different Departments. I do not think I can go into the other points raised by the hon. Member opposite regarding currency and matters of that sort, because it would hardly be suitable for me to deal with them on this occasion. I do feel that we are immensely indebted to the Mission and that we want far more information of that kind, and it is absolutely essential that these Reports should not be allowed to lie on the shelf and no action be taken upon them. They should be followed up. The hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. A. M. Samuel) referred to the Balfour Report. Surely the Balfour Report was presented when his party were in office.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: It came out then. I did not object to its coming out, that
is not the point. The point is why the people who got it do not use it.

Mr. GILLETT: I was going to ask why the hon. Member did not use it?

Mr. SAMUEL: The hon. Member has no right to say that. I did use it. We could not get the country to use it because it came out at long intervals and became stale; but here we have a small and very concise report and I say that use ought to be made of it.

Mr. GILLETT: I will take the advice of the hon. Member, though his example would have been a little more useful and would have given us some idea of how the report could have been used to the best advantage. The hon. Member himself occupied my present position at that time.

Mr. SAMUEL: I did not. I was at the Treasury at that time, and it did not come within the scope of my duties.

Mr. GILLETT: At any rate the Government in which the hon. Member held office could have taken action. I do not think there is any other point except that raised by the hon. Member in regard to the Lord Privy Seal. He spoke of a speech which the Lord Privy Seal made at Manchester—

Mr. SAMUEL: No, in this House.

Mr. GILLETT: It was a speech which referred to the reduction of the number of commercial secretaries and trade commissioners. Whether the speech was reported quite accurately I do not know, but what my right hon. Friend actually referred to was the fact that there had been a reduction in the number of representatives from the peak year. The peak year was 1921, when there were 62 in existence. Between 1921 and 1923 15 of these posts were abolished. When I say "posts," some of them were posts in the technical sense of the word and some of them were officials. I think nine were posts and six were in cases where there were already two such appointments. There was a further reduction of two in 1926, bringing down the number to 45. When relations with Russia were broken off, there was another reduction of two, making the number 43. The last Government created one post and that brought the number up to 44.

Mr. SAMUEL: Here is the reference in the OFFICIAL REPORT. It is in column 1864 of the Report of the proceedings on 20th December, 1929. The Lord Privy Seal said:
They wiped out at one fell stroke trade commissioners in 22 different countries.
I do not want to be unkind, but there is not a word of truth in that.

Mr. GILLETT: It all depends on whom my right hon. Friend meant. He was no doubt referring to recent Governments. Starting from the year 1921 it will be found that he was not very far wrong, for 19 posts were abolished and one was created, making the net reduction 18.

Mr. SAMUEL: He said "trade commissioners."

Mr. GILLETT: Well, trade commissioners or commercial secretaries. Surely the hon. Member does not wish to press a point of that kind? Many hon. Members in the House hardly realise the difference between a commercial secretary and a trade commissioner, though the distinction would be familiar to the hon. Member, who has held this office. In our Dominions we call these officials trade commissioners, and in foreign countries they are commercial counsellors or commercial secretaries. I will concede the hon. Member this much, that a mass of reductions were made before he occupied this office.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: We cannot enter into a prolonged and detailed discussion on this question.

Mr. GILLETT: The document has been read so often in the Committee this afternoon that I thought I should be allowed to make an explanation. I will not proceed, as you rule it out of order, and, as a matter of fact, I think I have said all that I wanted to say on the point. The hon. and gallant Member for North-East Bethnal Green (Major Nathan), who opened the discussion, said he very much hoped that we were going to press forward in every way with the work of this Department. That certainly is our intention. The hon. Member for Farnham might have done what we are doing, that is, increasing our representation abroad. We are strengthening the office at home and the representation
Overseas, and we are hoping fully to investigate the position of our export trade, and by the use of missions, by our representatives, by consultations with great business interests in this country we are hoping in the Department to make such a systematic study of our export trade as may be of some avail in finding new markets and drawing the attention of the business world to many points of concern to them.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

ARMY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1929.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £560,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for the excess cost involved in the employment of extra troops in China, not provided for in the Army Estimates of the year, and the loss of Army receipts involved in the withdrawal of the Army of Occupation on the Rhine.

Earl WINTERTON: I understand that this Estimate is in respect of the cost of troops in China, and that owing to the system which has been in vogue now for the last three years this is the only opportunity we shall have of discussing the matter. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War will correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that the whole cost of these troops in China is provided for in this Supplementary Estimate and not in the ordinary Army Estimates. I have no comments to make on the matter except to say that those who in this House find in the ironic march of events some consolation for the frequent tedium of our proceedings will be delighted to see the present Government and the Secretary of State for War defending a course of policy which they so ferociously criticised when they were out of office. I would like to quote to the Committee, for the benefit of the Government and their supporters, the Resolution on the subject which they supported some three years ago.

Mr. MILLS: On a point of Order. Is it in order to discuss policy on a Supplementary Estimate?

Earl WINTERTON: May I point out that this is the only occasion on which the Committee or the House will have an opportunity of discussing the policy
of keeping troops in China? The situation is very different from that which arises with an ordinary Supplementary Estimate. It is true that by the custom of the House it is not possible to discuss policy on an ordinary Supplementary Estimate, because the policy has been discussed on the Estimate itself, but although this is described as a Supplementary Estimate it really covers the whole cost of keeping our troops in China, and I submit that in these circumstances we are entitled to discuss that question, because it is the only opportunity we shall have of doing so. It would be out of order to discuss it on the Army Estimates, because no provision is made in the general Army Estimates for the cost of these troops.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think the Noble Lord is quite entitled to discuss the purpose for which this money is being spent, but I do not know whether he would be entitled to recall all that has happened on this subject in the past. He is entitled to discuss whether this policy was justified or not.

Earl WINTERTON: An important point is involved. As an old Member of the House I am always anxious to stick up for the rights of the House, but I must point out, with great respect, that in my submission I am perfectly entitled to raise a question of policy, and I am perfectly entitled to refer to the attitude of Members of the Government in the past. [Interruption.] Oh, yes; and, if there is any dispute, I shall be pleased to put the point to Mr. Speaker. I know—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have already ruled that the question of this policy could be discussed. The Noble Lord must not threaten the Chair.

Earl WINTERTON: I did not catch that remark.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I said the Noble Lord must not threaten the Chair. The Noble Lord must remember that Mr. Speaker does not decide questions of Order in this Committee. I decide them when in the Chair.

Earl WINTERTON: That is so, and I have not the least intention of transgressing your Ruling, but I was trying to get your Ruling quite clear. In the
course of your Ruling you made some reference to the Opposition, and I submit that you ruled very clearly that I am entitled to discuss policy, and that is the only point with which I am concerned. All I said was that had you ruled that that was not so I should have to consult higher authority. Your Ruling is perfectly clear. [Interruption.] Certainly, I am perfectly entitled to do that. Every Member of the House has a right to consult higher authority, which is Mr. Speaker, and can do so.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If the Noble Lord wishes to challenge the Ruling of the Chair, the method is not to consult Mr. Speaker, who is not responsible for conducting the Debate in Committee, but to table a Motion in the proper way.

Earl WINTERTON: I am not in the least challenging the Ruling of the Chair.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am afraid the Noble Lord is not treating the Chair with respect. I distinctly ruled that on the question of policy the Noble Lord was in Order, but it is perfectly obvious that on a Supplementary Estimate of this kind he cannot discuss the actions of past Governments.

Earl WINTERTON: That is so. If I may be permitted to say so, there is really nothing between myself and the Chair. I only wanted to be quite clear that this question of policy could be discussed. [Interruption.] There is not the least need for the hon. Member and his colleagues to jump up on points of Order.

Mr. STEPHEN: I also wish to be clear with regard to the Ruling that you have given. I think I understand it, but I am doubtful after hearing the comments of the Noble Lord on your Ruling. I take it your Ruling is that on this Supplementary Estimate we can discuss the policy involved in the Supplementary Estimate, but that the general policy previously decided in connection with the matter is outwith our discussion. In the past I have had occasion frequently to discuss Supplementary Estimates with your predecessors in the Chair, and they have always kept us very specifically to a discussion of the amount of money involved in the Supplementary Estimates and any change of policy which had arisen and
which called for the expenditure of the supplementary sum of money; but, in so far as there was no change of policy, then the details of a Supplementary Estimate itself were all that we were entitled to discuss. For instance, if the original amount had been so many thousands of pounds and there were now some additional hundreds of pounds, then we could discuss those additional hundreds of pounds but not the original sum.

Earl WINTERTON: May I point out that the hon. Member does not seem to realise that this is not an ordinary Supplementary Estimate? This is an Estimate affecting the whole of the troops in China and it would not be in order to discuss it on the main War Office Vote. Consequently, our only opportunity is to discuss it here to-day.

Mr. STEPHEN: I am quite as anxious as the Noble Lord to protect the rights of hon. Members. I take it that under your Ruling, Mr. Dunnico, the question which the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham was raising cannot be discussed on this Vote?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Shinwell): I think it would suit the convenience of the Committee if the Noble Lord would indicate which aspect of this Estimate he wishes to discuss.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Before the Noble Lord replies to that question I must point out that on a strictly Supplementary Estimate policy cannot be discussed, but where a Vote is a new Vote, a certain amount of latitude is allowed. I am not quite sure that it would be in order to discuss policy on this Vote, because it is not directly a new Vote, but it is something between. I do not want to be too strict in my Ruling, but it is perfectly obvious that I cannot give the Noble Lord the same latitude as he would be entitled to on an entirely new Vote.

Earl WINTERTON: I only want to safeguard the situation, because otherwise this, or some subsequent Government, might, by this method, endeavour to avoid the discussion of Supplementary Estimates. My speech can now be compressed into three or four sentences. I wish to congratulate the hon. Member upon his change of view, and to express my pleasure at seeing him in the role of
the defender of a most useful method of maintaining our prestige in the Far East, and upon having had the courage to alter his view in regard to what was said in February, 1927, when he was dealing with the question of the troops in China. May I express the hope that he will continue to stand firmly against those who are opposed to this policy, and I hope he will realise that the maintenance of this small body of troops in China, although the cost is very small, stands for a great deal, and probably, among other things, stands for the protection of our nationals in that country and for the prestige of our flag. I congratulate the Financial Secretary upon his change of view.

Mr. SHINWELL: I understand that the Noble Lord wishes to congratulate my right hon. Friend upon what he regards as a new rule. As a matter of fact, there is no new rule here, and I think it will be possible to explain in as few sentences as the Noble Lord himself has used precisely the position we occupy in this matter. The Noble Lord began his speech by saying that we had reduced considerably the number of extra troops in China. The number of troops on 1st March last year, when the late Government was in office, was 6,469. On 1st June last year, nine days before the present Government assumed office, the number was 4,064. I think that indicates that the late Government regarded the position in China as somewhat easier than it was the year before. I would like to remind the Noble Lord of the fact that the number of extra troops despatched to China in the period regarded as critical by the late Government in the early part of 1927 was between 17,000 and 20,000.
It will be seen that between 1927 and 1929 there was a very considerable reduction. That means that in the opinion of the late Government the position had improved; indeed, it might be said that the position had improved more rapidly than the Noble Lord and his friends had anticipated. Therefore, I think we were justified in our criticism as to the precipitate haste with which the Government despatched so many troops to China. When the present Government assumed office the number of troops in China was approximately 4,000, and the number now in China is 2,620. There are three battalions of extra troops in China, and I think the Noble Lord will agree with
me when I say that that indicates an easing of the situation, and it is clear that the position to-day is not the same as it was in 1927. Of course, when we took office it was impossible at one fell swoop to abandon all the commitments which confronted us, and I do not think that even the Noble Lord would expect the Government to adopt that method.

Earl WINTERTON: Certainly not.

Mr. SHINWELL: Then it would be very interesting to know what is the Noble Lord's complaint.

Earl WINTERTON: I did not complain. On the contrary, I congratulated the Government upon the policy which they had adopted.

Mr. SHINWELL: If all the Noble Lord desired to do was to congratulate the Government, then there is ample room for my surprise. The reason for my seeming reluctance to rise to explain this Estimate was due to a very substantial reason. It happens to be a Supplementary Estimate which can excite no undue controversy, and, that being so, I do not think I need detain the Committee by going into details.

Dr. VERNON DAVIES: There is an item of £263,000 given as the extra cost of troops in (respect of China. There is also another item of £263,000 put down as savings on other Services. I want to know if the Army has any hidden reserves, or is this an example of exceedingly clever budgeting? Because it looks very suspicious to find that on some occasion when you want to raise money you can find it from some hidden source.

Mr. SHINWELL: The two figures are merely a coincidence. It so happens that the actual expenditure in respect of China is £263,000, and the accumulated savings in respect of the Rhine and other Services amount to £263,000.

Question put, and agreed to.

AIR SERVICES SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1929.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £760,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for the cost of the Air Services not provided for in the Air Estimates of the year.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Mr. Montague): In asking the Committee to pass this Supplementary Estimate of £760,000, I should like to explain to hon. Members the main factors which render it necessary. The first important factor to which I should like to refer is the failure of the Indian Appropriation-in-Aid to materialise upon the expected, or at least the desired, basis. This has been for many years a disputed subject. Without going into unnecessary historical detail, I may state the position in a few sentences. Pay, maintenance, and equipment of the Air Force in India come upon the Indian Military Budget, but there are certain home effective charges which involve Air Estimates. Those home effective charges are charges raised by the Air Ministry against the Government of India. As there are no training establishments in India, these charges are intended to cover a proportionate amount of our expenditure on recruiting and training. Provision for this receipt is taken in Vote 1, Subhead H.
8.0 p.m.
To understand the matter thoroughly it is necessary to refer to the period directly following the War. Some arrangement had then to be made provisionally. It was assumed that training a highly technical force such as that of the Air would be a more costly process than in the case of the Army, but there were no really satisfactory data. War experience itself, under the largely empirical conditions prevailing during the War, could afford no sound comparison for the building of a peace-time force. Accordingly, a provisional "capitation rate" had to be found, and it was necessarily highly conjectural. A rate of £50 per man was agreed upon experimentally, and that rate has been paid by India ever since. It was an interim rate, and in the nature of an advance payment pending final settlement. As a matter of fact, this amount turned out to be totally inadequate, and, when sufficient data had been obtained, the Air Ministry had perforce to put forward a claim for a considerably larger capitation rate—a sum of £80 per man instead of £50.
This higher claim for the training of personnel is still under discussion. It has neither been admitted nor rejected by the Government of India, and certainly it has not been paid. The matter has been
involved with, and to some extent delayed by, other claims made by the Army—much larger claims of a similar character—and so the Government have not felt able to carry the matter further at the moment. It is now evident that for the year 1929 payment will again be made at the rate of £50 without arrears, and as, in March of last year, the Estimates budgeted for payment at the rate of £80 plus arrears for three years (the Government of India having undertaken to pay arrears from then when the matter had been finally settled), there is the necessity for this part of the Supplementary Estimate. There is a loss of receipts of £244,000, with a corresponding reduction in spending power. The plain fact of the matter is that, although the claim has been in no sense abandoned, it is necessary in the circumstances to ask the Committee to sanction that part of the Supplementary Estimate which falls under the heading of Appropriations-in-Aid from this source.
The next main factor necessitating this Supplementary Estimate is the overhead deduction known as the "Super-cut," to discount possible under-spending on Votes 3 and 4. This was assumed to be a matter of reasonable expectation for the purposes of the original Estimate in March of last year, and it was put down at no less a sum than £650,000. That figure has been shown to be excessive. Experience has shown that the amount which should have been allowed to represent delays in the fulfilment of contracts should not have been put at more than one-quarter of the figure mentioned. I am not attributing any blame in estimating in this particular matter. It is the object of the "super-cut" to discount the probability that a number of the liabilities for which provision has been taken will fail to mature during the financial year.
On a large programme of works and technical equipment there are bound to be difficulties, and in all sorts of ways those difficulties will impose limitations upon the expenditure. For example, inclement weather may hold up the development of works, or delays in delivery, modifications of designs and so forth may hold up the provision of equipment. This year it has been found possible to adhere to the actual programme more closely than could have been anticipated, and the result is that the "super-cuts" on
these Votes have not been realised. In consequence there has been a limitation of spending power, and this part of the Supplementary Estimate is necessary for that reason. I would like to say that it is possible that in preceding years, under the pressure of the demand for economy, the "super-cuts" have been rather drastic, with the result that it has happened, as it was bound to happen sooner or later, that when the element of optimism in estimating coincides with the element of luck in performance, the "super-cut" is bound to fail. So far as this part of the Supplementary Estimate is concerned, it is a matter of restoration to the actually ascertained position, and it is forced upon us by events. I should like, however, to make it quite clear that in this, as in that part of the Estimate which deals with the Indian Appropriations-in-Aid, there is no question of any new policy; there is no question even of unanticipated expenditure except so far as time is concerned. Therefore, I feel sure that the Committee will agree to this part of the Vote.
There are just one or two other matters to which I desire to refer. Hon. Members will notice that the Estimate is confined to Votes 1, 3, and 4, upon which the deficiencies I have mentioned occur, and Vote 8. The remaining Votes are not taken into account, because any variations anticipated are trifling. Vote 8 is included because it shows a saving of £39,000. That, of course, will be utilised to reduce the larger money grant which otherwise would be necessary. The surplus on Vote 3 under Subhead A is almost entirely accounted for by the fact that it has been decided to postpone the formation of two flights of the Fleet Air Arm. This decision also meant a corresponding decrease in Appropriations-in-Aid under that head from the Admiralty. The exact amount is £228,0.00. Hence the decrease in Appropriations-in-Aid under Subhead P. The two factors, however, exactly balance, and make no difference whatever in the total of the Supplementary Estimate. Of the total deficit on Subhead L of Vote 3, £40,000 is due to the rise of 2¼d. per gallon in the price of petrol at home, and the deficit of £90,000 on Subhead M of this Vote is due to payments in respect of three large claims falling unexpectedly upon this year's Votes. I think I have explained the main variations of interest, and I will,
of course, answer any questions that may be put, but I would like again to stress the fact that in the main burden of the Supplementary Estimate there is no question whatever of new policy, and there is no question of new commitment; it is entirely owing to the non-receipt of the total Appropriations-in-Aid from India and to the fact that events have shown that the "super-cut" was excessive and has not been realised.
I hope that by this explanation I have made the reasons for this Estimate clear to the Committee.

Sir SAMUEL HOARE: I have no reason to complain of the way in which the Under-Secretary of State for Air has explained the position to the Committee. Indeed, he has given a very clear exposition of the reasons which have necessitated this Supplementary Estimate. He is quite right in saying that it is due to two causes, and two causes alone—in the first place, to the fact that the Indian contribution to the capitation grant has been less than we expected a year ago, and, secondly, to the fact that there has not been as much under-spending as we expected there would be when the Estimates were actually made up. Let me add this one observation to what the hon. Gentleman has said about the Indian contribution. It is a question that has been discussed between the two Governments for a good many years, and I had hoped, when we drew up the Estimates last year, that as the case of the Air Ministry was so reasonable and just, the justification for the greater demand would be so obvious that the Government of India would have agreed to the higher capitation grant.
So far as I know, there has never been any question that the grant that India is paying to-day is a good deal less than it should be. If there were no British Air Force in India, and the Government of India had to form their own Air Force, they would be paying a much higher amount per head than the actual amount which in recent years they have been paying to the Air Ministry in respect of the Air Force. I hoped a year ago that, as our demand was so reasonable, we should have received this extra amount during the last 12 months, and I am very sorry that the Government of India has not agreed to it. Let me only add that I hope that there will be a settlement very
soon, and that one of the outcomes of the inquiries that are now going on into the relations between the two Governments will be to set up some sort of body which can settle these questions quickly. We shall then be spared the necessity for Supplementary Estimates of this kind, and I am quite certain that the relations between the two Governments will be much better as a result of some early settlement of these claims, which at present make those relations more difficult than they should be.
There is one observation that I should like to add to what the Under-Secretary said on the question of under-spending. The Air Ministry is a new Department, the aircraft industry was a new industry, and, in the early days of the history both of the Department and of the industry, it was very difficult to estimate exactly what the expenditure would be for the year. It is very difficult, to take a single instance, to say how long it will take to produce some new type of machine, or some new type of engine. I am glad to think that year by year that state of affairs is improving. I well remember that in 1922 the under-spending on the Air Ministry Vote was no less than £2,000,000, and, in order to bring the expenditure into closer relation with the Estimate, we have adopted in recent years the principle of what is called the "super-cut," namely, an allowance for under-spending. Year by year we made this "super-cut," and until this year we have not needed a Supplementary Estimate; but I own, looking back 12 months to the time when I introduced the Estimates upon which this is a Supplementary Estimate, I was very much afraid that a Supplementary Estimate would be needed, and, indeed, in my speech I warned the House that the "super-cut" was so great, that we had cut the Estimates so fine, that very probably a Supplementary Estimate would be needed in the course of the ensuing 12 months. Therefore, I am not surprised that the Under-Secretary has come to the Committee now to ask for a Supplementary Estimate. He has explained the position, and, so far as I know, there is no criticism that anyone on this side of the Committee would wish to make of his explanation. Accordingly, my advice to my hon. Friends, in
view of the position that he has stated and of the observations that I have made, would be that we should let this Estimate go through without undue delay or unnecessary criticism.

Mr. MANDER: While I gladly congratulate the hon. Gentleman on having been able to make certain savings, I am anxious to ascertain exactly why there has been a saving on civil aviation subsidies. I hope it has not been done by starving the development of light aeroplane clubs, because there are a number of towns, including Wolverhampton, which are anxious to start them, and I hope the Ministry has not been holding back money unnecessarily which might have been used for the development of these clubs. It may have had something to do with Imperial Airways not earning all the subsidy that was expected, but my chief anxiety is to urge the hon. Gentleman to spend more, and to blame him for not having spent more, if it could have been spent on the development of light aeroplane clubs.

Captain BOURNE: I should like to thank the hon. Gentleman for the very clear explanation he has given about Appropriations-in-Aid under Subhead H of Vote 1. This question first came up in the Estimates Committee three years ago, and we were told there was a hope that a settlement would be arrived at before long. We pressed the matter on the Air Ministry and the Treasury and they both agreed that it should be taken up. I was very much afraid, when I first saw the Estimate, that a settlement had in fact been arrived at with the Indian Government on terms that were not favourable to the British taxpayer. I am delighted to hear that the reason why the Estimate has not been realised is really that the old difficulties have not been superseded. I sincerely hope the Air Ministry will stand to their ground and will try to get £80 per officer and man out of the Indian Government and that a settlement will be reached in the course of the next year.

Rear-Admiral SUETER: While congratulating the Under-Secretary on his clear statement, I should like to ask one question with regard the surplus of £250,000 on Sub-head A of Vote 3. Is that entirely due to the postponement of the two flights of the Fleet Air Arm?
Is not the underspending on construction largely due to not taking orders earlier in the financial year? I hope the hon. Gentleman will look into it and next year will place his orders as early as possible, as it is very unfair on the industry to pile them all up at the end of the year. I quite agree with what the hon. Member below me said about the savings on civil aviation. I should have thought, in the backward state of civil aviation, that we should want to develop it all over the Empire and that it would be almost impossible to save £39,000. That ought to be looked into very carefully. Everyone is shouting for money to go on with civil aviation and to develop it all over the Empire, and here we are saving £39,000. With regard to postponing the two flights of the Fleet Air Arm, has the hon. Gentleman looked into the question of the American Fleet Air Arm? I understand they are developing it very rapidly while we are postponing ours.

Mr. HARDIE: I was surprised that no statement was made in regard to the two flights that have taken place of R.100 and R.101. I should have thought that would have been one of the principal points in the hon. Gentleman's statement. I notice that in page 6 of the Report we are told a great number of very interesting things without an explanation of them. For instance, we are informed that the actual weight that the two ships were to lift has not been lifted, and we are told on page 7 that the lift has been sacrificed in order to incorporate other experimental features. I should have thought, as they were saving money, with all this work still to do in investigation, some of it might have been spent in that, because it seems to me if the lift of the airships has been sacrificed, we ought to have been told whether or not they are going to be able to lift the weight originally estimated and that additional improvements will take place. There are so many things yet that require investigation, that you cannot afford to have any savings in a matter like this. We are told about unexpected difficulties in the development of the engines of the airships.

Mr. MONTAGUE: On a point of Order. Is the hon. Gentleman reading from the statement of the Secretary of State?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is not reading from the Supplementary Estimate which relates to this Estimate.

Mr. HARDIE: I will leave that. Might I ask if there is anything in regard to the two airships that I cannot discuss?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I cannot see any trace in the Estimates of any money spent for that purpose, so that it is out of order.

Mr. HARDIE: I want to know why the money was not spent.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is fully entitled to ask why the money was not spent.

Mr. HARDIE: I want to know why we have no explanation in regard to the removal of a certain engine from one of these airships, and I should like to know what it cost to take it out and to have these repairs done, and whether it was the responsibility of the maker of the engine. I do not want to press the point further. I will wait until the main Estimate comes on. But I am giving an indication now of the line I will take on that occasion. We are bound to know exactly a whole lot of things that are still under a veil so far as these two airships are concerned.

Mr. MONTAGUE: The statement of the late Secretary of State in reference to the super-cut really bears out the reference I made in my opening speech to the fact that there was no question at all of attributing blame for underestimating, or anything of the kind. I quite appreciate the point the right hon. Baronet put. The question of placing orders earlier in the year was raised. That matter has been raised in a number of Debates upon Air Estimates in the past. I appreciate the value of placing orders as early as possible from the standpoint of the employment of labour as well as the expenditure of money in endeavouring to make an even flow of expenditure and of orders. But I think that the hon. Member will realise that in the case of a highly technical service where a great amount of the work and development of that service is highly experimental there
are more difficulties in the way than there might otherwise be. The reason why there are some opportunities for criticism upon this particular point is that it is not always possible to see a year ahead exactly what the technical position of equipment in the Air Force is likely to be, but I can assure the hon. Member that every endeavour is made to secure an even distribution of orders throughout the year.
With regard to the question of saving on airship development there is a surplus of £39,000 due to the postponement of overseas flights. The question of the programme for the flights of R100 and R101, I shall be able to deal with in extenso next Tuesday. The postponement of those flights has resulted in a saving of £70,000, which is offset by increased expenditure on R101 to the extent of £31,000. Therefore, instead of there being a decrease there is an increase in the expenditure upon the airship, but as far as this complete Subhead is concerned the surplus is £39,000.
There is only one other point to which I have to refer and that is the Surplus of £13,000 under Vote 8 Subhead F: "Civil Aviation Subsidies." A sum of £5,000 was included in the original Estimate for preliminary expenses in connection with the projected service to South Africa, which has not been spent. I have to say in reference to that, that it was a covering amount necessary because of the difficulty of knowing precisely what amount would really be required during the year for a projected service of that kind. The remainder of the surplus is due to decreased subsidy to Imperial Airways on the London to India route, which depends on the number of completed journeys, not being fully earned owing to accidents, which hon. Members will remember as unfortunate features of last year. I was asked whether saving represents any reduction of assistance in respect of light aeroplane clubs. That is not the case. If the hon. Member will read the statement of the Secretary of State, he will see that there is no intention whatever of letting light aeroplane clubs down so far as the Estimates for 1930 are concerned. I hope
that by these few remarks I have answered adequately the points raised, and that we may now have the Vote.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolutions to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow.

REPORT. [6th MARCH.]

Resolutions reported:

CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1929.

Class VI.

1. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £3,050, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Fishery Board for Scotland, including Expenses of Marine Superintendence, and Grant-in-Aid of Piers or Quays, also for Loans to Herring Fishermen."

REVENUE DEPARTMENTS.

2. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £995,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Post Office, including Telegraphs and Telephones."

Class II.

3. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £252,100, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for sundry Dominion Services, including certain Grants-in-Aid, for certain exgratia Grants, and for Expenditure in connection with Ex-Service Men in the Irish Free State, and for a Grant-in-Aid to the Irish Free State in respect of Compensation to Transferred Officers."

Class VI.

4. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Mines Department of the Board of Trade."

Class V.

5. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £2,960, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of the Registrar-General of Births, etc."

Resolutions agreed to.

LAND DRAINAGE (SCOTLAND) BILL.

As amended [in the Standing Committee), considered.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Service of notices, etc.)

"Any notice or other document required or authorised by this Act to be served on any person may be served by delivery to that person or by post, and service on the known agent of any person shall be deemed to be service on that person."—[Mr. Johnston.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Johnston): I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This is mainly a drafting Amendment designed to make the service of notice clear.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Making of underground main drains.)

"(1) Where the owner or occupier of any agricultural land is of opinion that such land is being injured or is in danger of being injured through the refusal of the owner of any land to allow underground main drains to be formed through his land it shall be lawful for the owner or occupier of such agricultural land to apply to the sheriff for a warrant authorising him to make such underground main drains through the land of such owner.

(2) If the sheriff is satisfied that the land owned or occupied by the applicant is being or is in danger of being injured by such refusal as aforesaid, and that permission to make such underground main drains is being unreasonably withheld, he may after such inquiry by remit or report, or otherwise, as he may think necessary, grant a warrant authorising the making of such underground main drains, and the person so authorised shall have power to enter on the land where the operations are to be carried out, and to carry out the same. The sheriff may, if he thinks fit, direct that any operations to be carried out under such warrant shall be carried out under the supervision of a person of skill and experience in matters of drainage.

(3) Such warrant shall provide (i) for the payment by the person so authorised of compensation for any damage caused to any other person by reason of the making of the underground main drains authorised by such warrant, the amount of such compensation, failing agreement, to be determined by the sheriff after such inquiry as aforesaid; and (ii) for the proper maintenance or renewal of the said drains in the future
at the expense of the owner for the time being of the said agricultural land."—[Mr. MacRobert.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. MacROBERT: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This Clause is to re-enact certain essential parts of the Land Drainage (Scotland) Act, 1847, which has been repealed in this Measure. It is necessary to re-enact certain beneficiary provisions, and I do so in this Clause which I now move. I do not think that any explanation is required, as the Clause speaks for itself.

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. William Adamson): We are prepared to accept this Clause.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

CLAUSE 1.—(Maintenance of banks and cleansing of channels of watercourses.)

Amendment made: In page 1, line 10, after the word "cleanse," insert the words, "or scour or to join in cleansing or scouring."—[Mr. Johnston.]

Mr. W. ADAMSON: I beg to move, in page 1, line 11, after the word "in," to insert the words "or partly in."
This is a drafting Amendment to meet points that were raised in Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. ADAMSON: I beg to move, in line 13, to leave out the words "or his agent."
This Amendment is consequential upon the new Clause which we have passed.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I beg to move, in page 2, line 6, to leave out from the word "therein," to the end of the Sub-section.
We propose to leave out these words because they are covered by a later and more comprehensive Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. MacROBERT: I beg to move, in page 2, line 12, after the word "satisfied" to insert "(a)."

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Robert Young): That will be put right in the printing.

Amendment made: In page 2, line 23, leave out the word "owner," and insert instead thereof the word "person."—[Mr. W. Adamson.]

Mr. JOHNSTON: I beg to move, in page 2, line 31, at the end, to insert the words:
The sheriff may, if he thinks fit, direct that any operations to be carried out under such an order or warrant as aforesaid shall be carried out under the supervision of a person of skill and experience in matters of drainage.
This Amendment is designed to implement a pledge given in Committee, whereby the sheriff is authorised to have his orders carried out under the supervision of an experienced person.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I beg to move, in page 3, line 4, after the word "section," to insert the words:
(including the remuneration of any person under whose supervision the operations are directed to be carried out).
This Amendment is consequential upon the Amendment which we have just carried.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I beg to move, in page 3, line 5, at the end, to insert the words:
(7) The Court of Session may by Act of Sederunt make rules with regard to the remuneration of persons acting as assessors or as reporters or supervising the carrying out of operations under an order or warrant in pursuance of the provisions of this section, and the remuneration of any person acting as assessor or as reporter shall be treated as expenses in the application unless the sheriff otherwise directs.
This Amendment is to cover the Sub-section which we have left out.

Mr. MacROBERT: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 4, to leave out the word "section," and to insert instead thereof the word "Act,"

Amendment to proposed Amendment agreed to.

Proposed words, as amended, there inserted in the Bill.

CLAUSE 2.—(Schemes for drainage work.)

Mr. JOHNSTON: I beg to move, in page 3, line 15, to leave out the words "or building."
This Amendment is to ensure that there will be no doubt that the Interpretation Act shall apply. The question was discussed adequately in the Committee stage.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I beg to move, in page 4, line 12, after the word "to," to insert the words:
the benefit expected to accrue to such lands by reason of the execution of the scheme, and shall not apportion to any lands an amount in excess of the estimated value of the benefit so expected to accrue to such lands, and in estimating the value of such benefit the Department shall take into account.
This Amendment and the succeeding Amendment relate to a pledge which was given in Committee, whereby no one will be charged more than the benefit that he or she receives as a result of the operations of this Act.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 4, line 13, leave out the words "any of such," and insert instead thereof the word "the."

In line 14, leave out the words "any such," and insert instead thereof the word "the."

In line 19, leave out the words "any such," and insert instead thereof the word "the."

In line 21, leave out the words "the owner of any such lands," and insert instead thereof the words "such owner."

In line 25, leave out from the word "works" to the end of the Sub-section.—[Mr. W. Adamson.]

Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: I beg to move, in page 5, line 24, to leave out the word "Department," and to insert instead thereof the words "Land Court,"
An important question of principle arises on this Amendment. I am a warm supporter of the Bill and I fully recognise the way the Government have met the views of hon. Members on these benches. They have accepted some Amendments to which we attach importance, and I hope they will accept this proposal as well. It provides that where there is a dispute as to how the cost of these schemes shall be allocated as between
owners and occupiers, they should be able to appeal to the Land Court instead of being left to the mercy of the Department. In the Committee upstairs the Under-Secretary of State said that the Land Court was overworked. I have made inquiries and I have discovered that they are not so overworked as the Department of Agriculture; and it would be quite easy to appoint an additional member to the Land Court if it was necessary in order to undertake this work. I should like the Land Court brought in in two or three other places in the Bill, but I accept the decision of the Committee on these points. The Under-Secretary said that it would make a political agreement impossible if the Land Court was brought in. I do not think hon. Members above the Gangway would oppose the Land Court being brought in in this case, and it would be a real assistance to the Bill. Further, it would recommend it to the acceptance of the people of Scotland if they felt that they had a right to go to the Land Court, an impartial body, instead of being left to the mercy of the Department. I do not think the Department enjoys that implicit trust and confidence of the people of Scotland which the Under-Secretary seems to think.
There is one other important point. If the Amendment is not accepted it means that the Department will be the sole judge in allocating the cost of schemes as between owners and occupiers in regard to 720,000 acres of land in Scotland. The Department of Agriculture actually own 400,000 acres, but they are closely linked with the Forestry Commission, the War Department and the Commissioner of Crown Lands. In all these cases the tenants will have no appeal against the decision of their landlord unless you bring in the Land Court. All these Departments are closely linked together and they are all linked up with the Treasury. We know that orders very often go out when the Budget is coming along for expenses to be cut down. I say that the people in Scotland will not have confidence in this part of the Bill, in the allocation of the cost of schemes as between owner and occupier, unless they are able to appeal to the Land Court; and this especially applies to those who are the tenants of the Department of Agriculture. They will have no appeal from the decision of their land-
lord to the Land Court. This is a reasonable proposal and can be given without incurring those political disadvantages which the Under-Secretary of State fears. It is one which would make for the smooth running of the Bill and would commend it to the people of Scotland.

Mr. SCOTT: I beg to second the Amendment.
The matter of the apportionment of these expenses as between landowner and occupier should be in the hands of a judicial body. Under the Bill the Department will be the judge in its own court. The Land Court is not enjoying a, leisurely existence. It is doing good and hard work, but it is not overworked, and it could quite well cope with the additional work suggested by the Amendment. May I also point out that at present there is a vacancy in the Land Court which, if necessary, could be filled.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I hope the hon. and gallant Member will not press this Amendment. He has stated the case very persuasively, and, if it were possible for the Government to accept it, my right hon. Friend would not hesitate for a moment. Let me put the point of view which, perhaps, I stated rather indifferently during the Committee stage. I beg the hon. and gallant Member to believe that we made inquiries from every possible source, and, with the object of getting the maximum degree of agreement to the scheme, we did not seek to impose the Land Court. There are serious objections to the Land Court. There are large areas of land, perhaps the vast majority of land, which will be covered by these drainage schemes where the Land Court does not function at all. It must be remembered also that the Department will have drawn up the schemes and carried out the works, and fixed, subject to an appeal to the arbiter, the amount to be allocated as between the landowner and occupier. In our opinion it is the body best fitted to judge as to the proper allocation of expenses. It has had all the details through its hands. Its agents have been on the ground. It has drawn up the scheme and knows everything about it from A to Z. We can see no reason for dragging in another body to fix the allocation of costs as between owner and tenant.
Lastly, the point was made by the hon. and gallant Member and by the Seconder that the Department of Agriculture would be the judge in its own case, and that there were large areas of land where the Department, being the owner, would at least to some extent be suspect of not allocating fairly the proportions which the tenants and the owners might respectively be called upon to pay. But let me remind those hon. Members that the Department for this purpose is my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. He stands to be shot at in this House in a way that no other owner or proprietor of land in Scotland can be shot at, and an appeal in every case, if so desired, lies to this House. Every hon. Member can take the necessary steps under a succeeding Clause to bring the grievances of his constituents, if grievances there be, before this House. In order to ensure that the engineering schemes which are already drafted shall be pushed through from beginning to end with the maximum acceleration, the Government trust that the Land Court will not be dragged in, but that the Department will be left, subject to the appeals which are in the Bill to make the allocation as between owner and tenant.

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: I regret that the Under-Secretary of State has not seen fit to accept the Amendment, especially in view of the latter part of his argument. He said that redress is in this House. I am the last man to belittle this House, but the hon. Gentleman knows very well that there are plenty of complaints now with regard to the relation of the Board of Agriculture and tenants in Scotland, and that we can never find an opportunity of raising them effectively in this House. If there were a Parliament at Edinburgh instead of at Westminster it might be a very different thing, but there is a very strong case for the Land Court in this particular instance.

Sir PATRICK FORD: I have a proposal which is not quite in accordance with the Amendment. I have always maintained in this House and elsewhere that it is not right that Government Departments should be both advocates and judges in their own cause. I think that possibly the Lord Advocate will
agree with me when I make the proposition that instead of the Land Court, or the Department of Agriculture, these questions should be brought before the Sheriff.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: We must keep to the Amendment.

Sir P. FORD: I bow to your Ruling, but surely in criticising what is put forward in the Amendment we can suggest an alternative?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Discussion is confined to the Amendment before the House, and to the question whether the words shall be the Department or the Land Court.

9.0 p.m.

Sir P. FORD: I cannot see my way to support either, and I thought I might be allowed to state an alternative that would get us out of the difficulty, and that is the appointment of more sheriffs and better paid sheriffs.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment made: In page 5, line 35, after the word "as," insert the words:
may be fixed in any agreement made by the parties and confirmed by the Department or, failing such agreement, as."—[Mr. W. Adamson.]

Sir A. SINCLAIR: I beg to move, in page 6, line 16, to leave out from the word "by" to the end of the Sub-section, and to insert instead thereof the words:
the Sheriff of the county in which such lands are situated or his substitute.
Under the Bill as it stands, if an arbiter has to be appointed, the party having the dispute with the Department about the amount of compensation would have to go to Edinburgh and make an application to a Lord Ordinary. I submit that that is very much too cumbersome and expensive a procedure. It would mean that the aggrieved owner or occupier—he might be a very small man, for there has been an immense increase in the number of small occupying owners since the War—who might be in Caithness or Sutherland or any other remote part of Scotland, would not go himself to Edinburgh, but would employ his local agent, that the local agent would have to employ, an agent in Edinburgh, and that the agent in Edinburgh would make the application to the Lord
Ordinary for the appointment of an arbiter. The Government have seen to a large extent the force of our argument, and have met us to some extent in the following Amendment in which they suggest a provision that "the nomination of an arbiter shall be made by petition, and that any such petition may be in writing and need not be printed or boxed." That change would lower the expense only to a very small extent. Under my Amendment the reasonable procedure would be that the man could make an application to the Sheriff in person, and that the Sheriff would apply for an arbiter. It would not be the case that a local man would be appointed as arbiter, because under the next Clause the arbiter has to be appointed from the panel of arbiters. The Amendment means merely that instead of the appointment being made by the Lord Ordinary, it would be made by the Sheriff.

Mr. E. BROWN: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I am sorry that, for the reasons which we gave in Committee, we cannot possibly accept this Amendment. A considerable number of the schemes which we hope to promote do not lie within a single sheriffdom at all. Some of these schemes to deal with flooding would run through three sheriffdoms, and we do not desire the additional complexity of an appeal being made to one sheriff in respect of troubles which may be alleged to have arisen in the area of another. For that reason alone, we desire that the appeal shall not be made to a sheriff but to the Lord Ordinary. As the Bill was originally framed, there might have been something in the hon. and gallant Gentleman's argument that the method of appeal to the Lord Ordinary in the Court of Session would involve unnecessary expense, but we have sought to meet that point, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman himself has indicated, by the next Amendment on the Paper, according to which any application for the nomination of an arbiter is to be made by petition, and such petition may be in writing and need not be printed or boxed. I understand that as a result of that Amendment the legal costs of such an application might be £l or £2.
In a case in which the Department made the application for the nomination of an arbiter, no cost whatever would fall upon the claimant, and, while I am referring to that matter, may I take the opportunity of pointing out that tenants of Departmental land will not be in for one penny of expenses at all in this matter and cannot possibly be, because all charges are borne by the proprietor, and the proprietor in that case is the Department. A collective application could be made to the Lord Ordinary if there was a large number of claimants, and, under the Amendment which comes next on the Paper, that application need not involve more than a nominal charge, but it is necessary that there should be some central legal authority covering a wider area than a sheriff can cover to select these arbiters. For these reasons we are compelled to ask the House to reject the Amendment.

Mr. SCOTT: In supporting the Amendment I may possibly incur the wrath of my brother lawyers in Edinburgh because the procedure under the Bill as it stands will undoubtedly add to their profits. I cannot see an Edinburgh lawyer putting through this procedure for a £1 note as suggested by the Under-Secretary. If I know anything about their charges it is not likely to be done under a £5 note—though hon. Members opposite must understand that that is not all profit and that there are outlays, such as dues, to be paid on the process. It is quite true that counsel may have no interest in the procedure, because an agent may present the petition, but the argument that it is necessary to have a central authority ought not to carry weight. The Under-Secretary suggests that two or three sheriffs might be involved in one of these schemes, but nothing could be simpler than to provide that one of the sheriffs whose areas are concerned should nominate the arbiter. If expedition is what the Government desire they can have it by leaving the appointment in the hands of the local sheriff.

Sir P. FORD: On this occasion I feel bound to support the Government, though for reasons different from those of the Under-Secretary. I feel that these matters could be far more economically and promptly dealt with by the sheriffs,
but the sheriffs of Scotland—a very remarkable body—are rather overworked and until the Government see fit to appoint more sheriffs and to pay them better, the general public will have to put up with the additional fees and more costly processes involved in going before the Lord Ordinary. I appeal to the Lord Advocate to give his opinion on that matter.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. W. ADAMSON: I beg to move, in page 6, line 23, at the end, to insert the words:
Any application for the nomination of an arbiter shall be made by petition and any such petition may be in writing and need not be printed or boxed.
This Amendment is designed to meet the point submitted by the hon. and gallant Member for Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair). It ensures that the expenses of the procedure in the Court of Session for the appointment of an arbiter shall be kept as low as possible, and I assure the House that the Government are as anxious as anyone to keep down those costs.

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: We recognise the intention of the Government in moving this Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman says is designed to meet the point raised by us, but we consider that the Amendment just misses the point. By following the procedure envisaged in this Amendment, the expenses will be greater than they would have been had our previous Amendment been accepted.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 5.—(Crown Rights.)

Sir A. SINCLAIR: I beg to move to leave out the Clause.
If this Clause is passed, it means that all the land owned by the Crown and by Government Departments' will be outside the purview of the Measure. As I have already said, there are no fewer than 720,000 acres so held—the largest landed estate in Scotland. Under Clause 2, the Government will make contributions towards large schemes of drainage throughout Scotland. Therefore, of course, we do not want the Crown specifically forced under this Clause to make such contributions unless it is the Government policy to do it, but, in addition to that,
there is the question of the maintenance of these works once they are made, and we say that the Crown and the Government Departments should be under the same obligations as other owners and occupiers of land in Scotland to maintain works once they are made. It is not fair that owners and occupiers all over Scotland should have to maintain these drainage works, but that the Crown and Government Departments should be exempt from that obligation.
Under Clause 1 of the Bill any owner or occupier whose land is being flooded with water coming from the land of another owner or occupier, because that other owner or occupier refuses to scour out some canal or clean some drain, is able to go to the sheriff and to get a decree from him compelling that other owner or occupier to carry out that work and prevent his lands from being flooded. But if this Clause 5 remains in the Bill, any owner or occupier of land who is suffering from the failure of any Government Department or of the Commissioners of Crown Lands to scour their canals or clean their drains, will have no redress. It is my submission that this House should see that those people should have redress, that if they are being damaged by flood water coming from property belonging to a Government Department they should have just the same right of going to the sheriff and getting a decree making that Department join with them in putting that flooding right as they would Have if that land were owned by a private individual.
In refusing to accept one of my other Amendments, the Under-Secretary made use of an argument which he may make use of against this Amendment, and I would venture, therefore, to forestall it. He will say, "It is true there is no appeal to the sheriff, but they will appeal to this House." Every Member of this House knows that, although we try our best to see that injustices of this kind are stopped, and that Members of whatever party will stand up for the rights of their constituents against the heads of Government Departments, even on their own side of the House, they know equally well that it is very difficult indeed to get redress, particularly in small cases, where it may be the flooding of the land of a small occupying owner of 40 or 50
acres of land. Is any Member going to be able to get the opportunity of having that discussed and a Division taken on it in this House?
If we go to the Secretary of State for Scotland, we shall be most courteously received, and he will look into our complaint and discuss it with his officials. From the head official in Whitehall, it goes to a second official in Edinburgh, and from him to an area commissioner for several counties of Scotland, and from him it goes to the sub-commissioner for the particular county affected. Then a report is sent, and when it comes back through all those various channels to the Scottish Office, and the Secretary of State finds that these officials have reported to him that there is really no case, do hon. Members really suppose that these occupiers or owners of land have any effective appeal whatsoever? The only effective appeal they can have is if they are given this right of going to the sheriff, and if the sheriff considers that that Government Department, be it the Department of Agriculture, or the Commissioners of Crown Lands, or the Forestry Commissioners, should be made to join with the other owner or occupier in putting that drainage right, that sheriff's decree should run against that Department. It is only if we insist on that being done that we shall have effectively stood up for the rights of our constituents.

Sir R. HAMILTON: I beg to second the Amendment.
The history of the preservation of Crown rights and the immunities of the Crown is a very long and interesting one, and I do not propose to go into it now, but I submit that it is a matter to which this House might very well devote some attention. On one of the occasions when a private Member is fortunate in the ballot, it would be an excellent matter to put down for discussion, because in the course of time, conditions have changed—very rapidly of late years—so that what might have been necessary some hundreds of years ago, to-day becomes somewhat ridiculous. On the present occasion we are dealing with the Crown as a common landlord, and because the particular lands in question may belong to the Department of Agriculture, the Department is to be treated as though it was a King
of 300 years ago, and no one can do anything except bow down to the Department, whose consent has to be obtained before anything can be done. The effect of this Clause in Scotland has been so admirably put by my hon. and gallant Friend, that I do not propose to say anything more in seconding this Amendment.

Mr. JOHNSTON: With some of the observations that have fallen from the hon. Members opposite, we have no disagreement whatever. The question of the immunity of Crown land generally is a subject that might profitably be discussed in this House, but I would point out to both the hon. Members that this is hardly a case upon which to raise it, inasmuch as we have already provided in the Bill that no human being shall be charged more than the benefit which he or she receives. Whether a man be a tenant of Crown lands or not is immaterial; no one will be charged more than the benefit which he or she receives as a result of the operations of the Act.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: The hon. Member is only referring to schemes dealt with under Clause 2; he is not referring to Clause 1.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I am dealing with the case where the Department is an owner and where the Department's lands are affected by a flooding scheme. Where a scheme is drawn up, no tenants on the Department's land can be adversely affected to the extent of one halfpenny by anything in this Bill. It is indeed expressly provided—and I think hon. Members on all sides of the Committee upstairs insisted upon making it clear in the Bill—that no one was to be called upon to pay more than the benefits which he or she received. There is no point whatever in seeking to make out a case against the Crown because of any possible harsh or unfair treatment which it may mete out, either to a tenant upon Crown estates or to anyone else.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: What about Clause 1?

Mr. JOHNSTON: Let me put it to the hon. and gallant Gentleman that Clause 1 operates where a proprietor does not in fact keep his property in proper condition. The State may conceivably not keep its property in proper condition. I put it no higher than that, but that does not arise on this question.
The question the House is now discussing is whether or not the Crown can be sued and pressed for payment. If the Department of Agriculture or any other Crown Department is not looking after its property, there are other remedies open to compel the Department to see to it that its property is put into proper repair. That is the remedy, and this is not the time or place to raise the question of the immunity of the Crown from prosecution or from attachment in the courts. That raises many serious issues which ought not to be raised here. I want again to draw the attention of the House to the fact that under the provisions of the Bill no one can be charged more than the benefits he has received, and in these circumstances I hope the hon. Member will not press the Amendment.

Mr. SCOTT: I rise to support the Amendment. It may be true that we touch here upon the very much larger question of the liability of the Crown in regard to private citizens, but that is no reason why when the Crown comes into a question of this sort we should continue on what is admittedly the wrong road. The old road will some day require to be altered, but when we have a certain part of it here before us we ought to take steps to see that the Crown is made liable. I would point out that under Clause 1 the culprit may be a Government Department. The latter part of Clause 5 says:
and nothing in this Act shall authorise the use of or interference with any land … belonging to His Majesty.
It might quite well be that the agents or officers of the Department would have no permission to enter land from which damage was being done. The Crown ought to be made liable as private citizens are not only for the costs of carrying out the scheme, but also for the cost of maintenance. It may be said in reply that the Government Department concerned would make a voluntary contribution. This matter ought not to be left on that footing, and I say the Crown should be put in exactly the same position as any other private citizen in this matter.

Amendment negatived.

CLAUSE 7.— [Interpretation.]

Mr. W. ADAMSON: I beg to move, in page 8, line 35, at the end to insert the words:
The expression 'agricultural land' shall include any land used for agricultural or pastoral purposes or for the purpose of poultry farming or as a market garden, orchard, allotment, or allotment garden, and any woodlands or land used for the purpose of afforestation.
I believe that the House desires to have this Amendment.

Mr. MacLAREN: We have had a very quiet and homely conversation with one another to-night, and before we depart I should like to call attention to this definition. I should rather think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Renfrew (Mr. MacRobert) has had something to do with this definition.

Mr. MacROBERT: On the contrary, I proposed the definition before the Committee and it was defeated.

Mr. MacLAREN: I know that the right hon. and learned Gentleman moved a definition, but if I read the one he proposed in Committee and the one we have here I would think they were Siamese twins, for they have a very strong relationship with each other. This is the old hackneyed definition which will not hold water five minutes in the Law Courts. There are several complaints which could be made about it. The wording could be pulled to pieces in the Law Courts. It is not comprehensive enough. You include poultry farming, market gardening, orchards, allotments, allotment gardens and woodlands, and you might even include graveyards. It is not comprehensive enough. If you wanted to make it so comprehensive that you would include in the definition every function for which land could be put in an agricultural sense, I could well imagine that the definition would run to a full page of the Order Paper. I want to protest against this definition. It comes up regularly in all Bills dealing with land. It came up in the Local Government Bill on the de-rating Clauses. The definition was very much the same, and I want to protest against it. I will not force it to a Division. I shall have to abide by it, but it is high time that someone rose in this House and protested against it.
I would like very much to see this made a test case in the Law Courts. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman opposite would knock holes in it in five minutes in the Courts. A definition of agri-
cultural land would have to take another line altogether. I have suggested that line before. It should be based on valuation. I am speaking about the definition, not about administrative practice. It should be one which as sensible human beings we know would stand the test of the Law Courts. If you take the definition here, I know of land in the very heart of Glasgow which could be used for poultry farming or market gardening, and could come under the definition of agricultural land. It is in order to point out the ridiculousness of this so-called definition that I have entered this happy evening into a very quiet Scottish Debate. Let me say that I have heard hon. Members opposite complaining about the redress they have against the high-handed authority of the Crown. It is high time that the Scottish Members of the House developed the old temper of the Irish Members. I have seen this House held up over a question of hens being shot, never mind the question of landholdings in Scotland.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: I listened with great interest to the delightful speech of the hon. Member; there is only one thing that would be more amusing than his
speech, and that would be if he tried his hand at a definition.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. MacROBERT: I beg to move, in page 9, line 10, after the word "drain," to insert the words "(whether open or closed)."
This would make the definition clearer.

Mr. JOHNSTON: The Amendment seems hardly necessary, because the word "watercourse" includes any drain, but there is no strong objection to the words, and if the right hon. and learned Gentleman is satisfied that it makes the Bill more explicit, we will accept it.

Amendment agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. T. Kennedy.]

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-two Minutes before Ten o'Clock.